NetNews Offline 2/NetNews Offline Volume 2.iso/news/comp/lang/c++-part1/7585

Internet Message Format | 1996-08-05 | 3.3 KB

Path: newshost.lanl.gov!tanmoy
From: [e-mail] (Tanmoy Bhattacharya)
Newsgroups: comp.arch.arithmetic,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Access carry flag from C
Date: 23 Feb 1996 17:15:10 GMT
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]> <danpop.824859220@rscernix>
    <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: qcd.lanl.gov
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text
In-reply-to: Franz Korntner's message of Fri, 23 Feb 1996 09:08:36 GMT

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

I don't understand what you are saying! Have you read the clause?

    5.2.4.2 (your 2.2.4.2):

    A conforming implementation shall document all the limits specified in
    this subclause.

    5.2.4.2.1:

    The values given below shall be replaced by constant expressions
    ... Their implementation-defined values shall be greater in magnitude
    (absolute value) to those shown, with the same sign.

    ...
    --- maximum value for an object of type int
    INT_MAX   +32767

Is there any doubt as to what this means? The only interpretation I
can think of is that INT_MAX is the maximum value of type int, this
has to be defined by the implementation, the definition is to be a
constant, and this constant has to exceed 32767.

It states explicitly that INT_MAX is the maximum value of type int
... how do you read anything else?

Cheers
Tanmoy
--
[e-mail](128.165.23.46) DECNET: BETA::"[e-mail]"(1.218=1242)
Tanmoy Bhattacharya O:T-8(MS B285)LANL,NM87545 H:#9,3000,Trinity Drive,NM87544
Others see <gopher://yaleinfo.yale.edu:7700/00/Internet-People/internet-mail>,
<http://alpha.acast.nova.edu/cgi-bin/inmgq.pl>or<ftp://csd4.csd.uwm.edu/pub/
internetwork-mail-guide>. -- <http://nqcd.lanl.gov/people/tanmoy/tanmoy.html>
fax: [phone]   voice: 1 [phone]    [ Home: 1 [phone] ]