From: "Boyd Roberts" <boyd@fr.inter.net>
To: <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] another compiler bug (another try to send this coherently)
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 21:47:54 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <022b01c10e30$34a40cb0$3cf7c6d4@SOMA> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200107161921.f6GJL7c10659@ducky.net>
From: "Mike Haertel" <mike@ducky.net>
> I'm not actually trying to do anything that depends on this.
> I have been writing some high-performance AES (Rijndael) encryption
> routines lately.
yeah, i know what AES is.
> I decided the portability problems associated
> with relying on compilers getting the ANSI C rules exactly right
> were too much of a headache, so I went through the code to put in
> explicit casts anywhere implicit conversions would otherwise occur,
> to prevent broken compilers (like 8c) from doing the Wrong Thing.
ahh, that little tin god efficiency. why didn't you _write_ the
code that way in the first place?
> I was reviewing my code, with the help of "8c -t" to print the
> parse trees and make sure there were no implicit promotions left,
> when I stumbled across a few more I had overlooked, and noticed
> moreover that 8c was inserting "CAST UINT" in places where ANSI
> says it should have inserted "CAST INT". So I reported it as a bug.
don't you think that posting the above paragraph would have more
useful?
> It wasn't causing me any trouble,
it did, by your own admission.
> but I think these things should be fixed whenever you find them.
sure, but, i'm not sure plan 9 gets it _wrong_.
doug will probably disagree, but i know why. i guess the ANSI
reasoning went:
chars get promoted to int. trouble is that whether they
where signed or not was undefined, so they all got
promoted to int.
i think this is wrong. they should have preserved their
unsigned property if they were declared as unsigned. in
a char decl, well make a choice:
- make it implementation dependant
- declare 'em to be signed by definition
language law -- i hate it.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-07-16 19:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-07-14 3:26 Mike Haertel
2001-07-16 9:05 ` Douglas A. Gwyn
2001-07-16 9:38 ` Boyd Roberts
2001-07-16 18:34 ` Mike Haertel
2001-07-16 18:52 ` Boyd Roberts
2001-07-16 19:21 ` Mike Haertel
2001-07-16 19:47 ` Boyd Roberts [this message]
2001-07-17 15:16 ` Douglas A. Gwyn
2001-07-16 11:13 rog
2001-07-16 12:51 ` Boyd Roberts
2001-07-16 13:41 ` Boyd Roberts
2001-07-16 13:44 ` Boyd Roberts
2001-07-17 15:51 forsyth
2001-07-18 8:43 ` Douglas A. Gwyn
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='022b01c10e30$34a40cb0$3cf7c6d4@SOMA' \
--to=boyd@fr.inter.net \
--cc=9fans@cse.psu.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).