Integral conversions in C/C++

Christian Böhme
Wed Apr 23 08:45:00 GMT 2008

John Love-Jensen wrote:

> As I understand the discussion, the concern was that the negation of a
> uint32_t was undesirably an uint32_t.

That, but in actuality an uint32_t typed result of a 32 bit unsigned
int multiplication although the ISA of the target provides a 64<-32x32
insn that is not emitted due to the frontend hiding this information
from the backend.

> uint16_t * uint16_t ==> int32_t
> Yep, multiplying two uint16_t results in a int32_t, not a uint32_t.
> Surprise!

No surprise here.  Before multiplication, integral promotion makes
int32_ts from the uint16_ts on this particular machine.  Try that on
16 and 64 bit machines and the result types of (s * s) will be
uint16_t and int64_t, respectively.  Since in this example both
uint16_t operands are promoted to the same type no further ``usual
arithmetic conversions'' are applied.  Integral promotion comes
with the catch of promoting only up to int or unsigned int
whatever that on the target may be.

> This forum cannot change the standard.

It can discuss details of its implementation in GCC.

> If anyone wants to change C, or C++, the result is something that
 > may be similar to C or C++, but is not C or C++.

The GNU people have introduced their fair share of mostly private
extensions particularily to C themselves so this ML may actually be
more appropriate than it may initially seem.

> But on the bright side, D Programming Language implements 95%+ of
 > what I would have liked in my own homebrew language, and
> has a GCC implementation (gdc).

Well, I make hardware and write code for a living and the industry
being what it is very much sets the rules within which that happens.

> PS:  I once had a chance to talk to Bjarne Stroustrup, with my litany of
> complaints with C++.  He stopped me short, and replied (paraphrased) "If you
> do not like C++, you are free to create your own language.  I did." 

Quite.  If both of you were given the exact same preconditions,
your language may have been evolved into something similar.  Notice
that C++ has been industry backed from the start while the rest of
the language bunch apparently only has educational character.  The
point being here that a language itself is useless unless an
implementation for a particular hardware exists.  Unless your
application is on a PeeCee, you're out of luck with most of these.


More information about the Gcc-help mailing list