Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    comp.lang.c++.moderated    |    Moderated discussion of C++ superhackery    |    33,346 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 31,902 of 33,346    |
|    Seungbeom Kim to Francis Glassborow    |
|    Re: "Portability" of operators working o    |
|    11 Feb 12 15:20:30    |
      From: musiphil@bawi.org              On 2012-02-10 14:14, Francis Glassborow wrote:       > How an actual system represents values is irrelevant, the C++ Standard       > requires that an implementation conforms to the abstract machine. In C++       > this abstract machine is required to represent integer types in a pure       > binary form (there are three options, two's complement (most common)       > ones complement (I think this is very rare these days), sign and       > magnitude (again rare). There are no other options. The bitwise       > operators will operate on the 'bits' even if the underlying system uses       > some other representation.              Then, is the result of a bitwise operation implementation-defined,       depending on the representation of negative numbers?       For example, how is the result of (3 & -3) defined -- can it be       any of 0, 1, or 3?              -3 = 11..1101 (2C)       -3 = 11..1100 (1C)       -3 = 10..0011 (SM)              --       Seungbeom Kim                      [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]        [ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca