[9fans] bitfields

[9fans] bitfields

[erik quanstrom]

actually, if bit fields operate on 2s complement i think
that's the correct answer.

if you have a n-bit integer ~0 (all ones) is -1.  so if you
have a one-bit signed integer, the possiblities are 0b and
1b which should be 0 and -1.

- erik

On Wed Jun  6 03:06:00 EDT 2007, bruce.ellis@gmail.com wrote:
> easy.  ken had (has) no respect for bitfields.
> he is a wise man.
>
> brucee
>
> On 6/6/07, Kris Maglione <bsdaemon@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 12:30:55AM -0400, Kris Maglione wrote:
> > > !8c test.c && 8l test.8
> > > !
> > > !./8.out
> > > foo.x: -1
> > > !
> >
> > Also:
> >
> > !8c -wF test.c && 8l test.8
> > warning: test.c:11 format mismatch d LONG 0:1, arg 2
> > !
> >
> > I'm surprised that there's not a warning about the overflow.
> >
> > --
> > Kris Maglione
> >
> > For every human problem, there is a neat, plain solution --
> > and it is always wrong.

Re: [9fans] bitfields

[don bailey]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

erik quanstrom wrote:
> actually, if bit fields operate on 2s complement i think
> that's the correct answer.
>
> if you have a n-bit integer ~0 (all ones) is -1.  so if you
> have a one-bit signed integer, the possiblities are 0b and
> 1b which should be 0 and -1.

That's my take on it as long as the type is defined as signed.
Did GNU always enforce bitfields to be unsigned before? What
was the reasoning behind this change?


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGZ0RoyWX0NBMJYAcRAk1kAJsHjzP5/VlPKVfgGKaotVjx/Ema3gCfXcY2
pORPJK00rGWu4oGeBaW1mDU=
=TTAS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----