NetNews Offline 2/NetNews Offline Volume 2.iso/news/comp/lang/c++-part1/7558

Text File | 1996-08-05 | 2.6 KB | 61 lines

Path: sun001.spd.dsccc.com!spd!jmccarty
From: [e-mail] (Mike McCarty)
Newsgroups: comp.arch.arithmetic,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Access carry flag from C
Date: 23 Feb 1996 23:55:41 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications Corporation, Plano, Texas USA
Message-ID: <4glk5t$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: aplo139.spd.dsccc.com

In article <[e-mail]>, Franz Korntner  <[e-mail]> wrote:
)Tanmoy Bhattacharya wrote:
)>
)> In article <[e-mail]> Franz Korntner <[e-mail]>
)> writes:
)> <snip>
)>    32 bit numbers. According to the (X3J11 / ANSI) standard, the constant
)>    INT_MAX (and in this case most limits in limits.h) denotes the minimal
)>    limit. It is possible that the physical limit is much higher (or lower
)>    in the case of negative values). As I am only interested in the physical
)>    limit, the value INT_MAX has no meaning. Only the compiler is fully aware
)>    of these limits (and not a header file!) and what I really miss in the
)>    standard and/or implementation is a inline function 'maxlimitof(int)',
)>    analogical to 'sizeof(int)'.
)>
)> Please quote the standard. I find no discussion of this in my copy;
)> and I suspect it is incorrect.
)
)I only have a copy of the Rationale at this moment, and it is also mentioned
)on page 17, Environmental limits.
)
)2.2.4.2.1 Sizes of integral types <limits.h>. Such a large body of C code
)has been developed for the 8-bit byte machines that the integer sizes in
)such environments must be considered normative. The prescribed limits are
)minima; an implementation on a machine with 9-bit bytes can be conforming,
)as can an implementation that defines int to be the same width as long.
)page 17.

ISO Standard

    5.2.4.2.1 Sizes of integral types <limits.h>

      The values given below shall be replaced by constant expressions
    suitable for use in #if preprocessing directives. Morever, except
    for CHAR_BIT and MB_LEN_MAX, the following shall be replaced by
    expressions that have the same type as would an expression that
    is an object of the corresponding type converted according to the
    integral promotions. Their implementation-defined values shall be
    equal or greater in magnitude (absolute value) to those shown, with
    the same sign.

Is that good enough? They may be larger.

Mike


----
char *p="char *p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}

I don't speak for DSC.         <- They make me say that.