signed is undefined and has been since 1992 (in GCC)

[Gabriel Dos Reis]

"Dave Korn" <dave.korn@artimi.com> writes:

[...]

| >Maybe you should reread what I was replying to:
| > 
| > On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 08:57:20AM -0400, Robert Dewar wrote:
| >> But the whole idea of hardware semantics is bogus, since you are
| >> assuming some connection between C and the hardware which does not
| >> exist. C is not an assembly language.
| > 
| > That is what I utterly disagree with.
| 
|   Well, I don't utterly _anything_ about either his position or yours.  C is
| not just a high level assembler, it has complex and abstract semantics
| imposed on that; it may have been reasonable to treat it as such back in the
| very early K'n'R days, but it has changed massively since then.  I also
| agree that reasoning in the utter abstract about languages is not
| necessarily very useful in practice, but it is a perfectly reasonable way to
| define a baseline against which it becomes possible to analyze the
| similarities and differences of any real-world implementation.

when the baseline is that C or C++ has not connection with whardware
semantics", it becomes ridiculous and uninteresting. 

-- Gaby