![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Fri, 3 Nov 2006, Oleg Verych wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 06:09:39PM +0100, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
>>> In gmane.linux.kernel, you wrote:
>>> []
>>>> From: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
>>>>
>>>> As Mikulas points out, (1 << anything) won't be evaluating to zero.
>>>
>>> How about integer overflow ?
>>
>> C standard defines that shifts by more bits than size of a type are
>> undefined (in fact 1<<32 produces 1 on i386, because processor uses only 5
>> bits of a count).
> ,--
> |#include <stdio.h>
> |int main(void) {
> | unsigned int b = 1;
> |
> | printf("%u\n", (1 << 33));
> | printf("%u\n", (b << 33));
> | return 0;
> |}
> |$ gcc bit.c && ./a.out
> `--
>
> There *is* difference, isn't it?
The standard says that the result is undefined, so the compiler is
standard-compliant. It could have returned any numbers and still be
correct.
Mikulas
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2006-11-03 18:17 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||