Thou shalt have no other gods before the ANSI C standard 1347
D. J. Bernstein
Oh its worse than that -- there apparently exists exactly 2 platforms which could use two different representations for a pointer depending on their type. Because of these two platforms (neither of which has a C99 compliant compiler installed on them -- and which never will) the standard says you can't memcpy pointers, or buttume the size of one is the same as the size of another, etc.
When you don't know what you're talking about, it is better to remain silent. Now we have yet another error that if let stand would mislead more programmers. The C...
Do you like how he snuck in "competent" in there? He actually tried to defend '-0' terminated strings as actually *higher performance* than length delimited strings. Sorry, but I don't buttociate competence with that sort of stupidity-denial.
You left out a really important one: right shifting of signed values always results in sign extension. :) But seriously, you can't leave 2s complement off that list.
It is physically impossible for some people to parse and comprehend that statement. I'm not kidding, the very concept of what you just said is just far too abstract of an idea for these people to understand. It is beyond their being.
2s complement, IEEE-754, 32bit ints is a defacto standard that has more momentum than any language specification. That's why these important functional attributes continue to exist even though the latest ISO C99 standard (which is 4+ years old now) has not been adopted by any major vendor. The deafening silence with which the C99 standard has been met by the industry is testimony to what the *REAL* standard is (POSIX + the various system ABIs + the "32bit" features you listed above).
Douglas A. Gwyn Read carefully. What you said and what I said are not contradictory. The problem is for pointers of *different types*. Its important for...
-- Paul Hsieh
Thou shalt have no other gods before the ANSI C standard 1348
Alt Folklore Computers from Newsgroups