On Tue, May 08, 2007, Esben Nielsen wrote:
>
> This is contrary to C99 standeard annex H2.2
> (http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1124.pdf):
>
> "An implementation that defines signed integer types as also being modulo
> need
> not detect integer overflow, in which case, only integer divide-by-zero need
> be detected."
>
> So if it doesn't properly defines wrapping it has to detect integer
> overflow, right?
No. Annex H (informative!) only talks about LIA-1 conformance.
C99 isn't LIA-1 conformant. H2.2 describes what an implementation
might do to make signed integers LIA-1 compatible, which is
what gcc does with -fwarpv or -ftrapv.
At least that's how I understand it, the C99 standard
seems to have been written with the "it was hard to
write, so it should be hard to read" mindset. :-/
I still don't know _why_ signed integer overflow behaviour
isn't defined in C. It just goes against everyones expectation
and thus causes bugs.
Johannes
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- References:
- Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v8
- Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v8
- Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v8
- Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v8
- Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v8
- Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v8
- Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v8
- Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v8
- Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v8
- Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v8
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
