From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26588 invoked by alias); 7 Feb 2018 18:50:58 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-help-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 26577 invoked by uid 89); 7 Feb 2018 18:50:57 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=hail, contradict, H*i:sk:A@mail., e-mails X-HELO: smtp01.uc3m.es Received: from smtp01.uc3m.es (HELO smtp01.uc3m.es) (163.117.176.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 07 Feb 2018 18:50:55 +0000 Received: from smtp01.uc3m.es (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FC9C94096; Wed, 7 Feb 2018 19:50:53 +0100 (CET) Received: from smtp01.uc3m.es (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00CA69408D; Wed, 7 Feb 2018 19:50:53 +0100 (CET) Received: from triangulo.it.uc3m.es (unknown [163.117.139.109]) by smtp01.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Wed, 7 Feb 2018 19:50:52 +0100 (CET) Received: from nbd.it.uc3m.es (root@nbd.it.uc3m.es [163.117.139.192]) by triangulo.it.uc3m.es (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3sarge3) with ESMTP id w17IoqAi005958 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Wed, 7 Feb 2018 19:50:52 +0100 Received: from nbd.it.uc3m.es (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nbd.it.uc3m.es (8.13.1/8.13.1/Debian-15) with ESMTP id w17Iomei008422; Wed, 7 Feb 2018 19:50:48 +0100 Received: (from ptb@localhost) by nbd.it.uc3m.es (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id w17IomMv008420; Wed, 7 Feb 2018 19:50:48 +0100 From: "Peter T. Breuer" Message-Id: <201802071850.w17IomMv008420@nbd.it.uc3m.es> Subject: Re: signed/unsigned integer conversion for right shift seems To: tadeus.prastowo@unitn.it (Tadeus Prastowo) Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2018 18:50:00 -0000 Cc: ptb@inv.it.uc3m.es (Peter Breuer), jwakely.gcc@gmail.com (Jonathan Wakely), david@westcontrol.com (David Brown), lh_mouse@126.com (lh_mouse), gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org (gcc-help) In-Reply-To: from "Tadeus Prastowo" at Feb 07, 2018 06:39:04 PM X-Anonymously-To: Reply-To: ptb@inv.it.uc3m.es X-WebTV-Stationery: Standard\; BGColor=black\; TextColor=black Reply-By: Sat, 1 Apr 2006 14:21:08 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-imss-scan-details: No--0.503-5.0-31-10 X-TMASE-Version: IMSVA-9.1.0.1689-8.2.1013-23648.002 X-TMASE-Result: 10--0.503000-10.000000 X-TMASE-MatchedRID: vEvJ7Rh1lGgv2k3M27J31vHkpkyUphL9C4rWEiK1IgcfwQ5+r4+IN2Ah JwKJaQoQjicdtTx1Pj1oTwP3QB155IToZqUCO9J54nbwqqmOd2mHxi2fvkKUM+4gAY/pA1IFCpB BAsyHrqe8EAP8IwEhNs0Xom2dj/YBCLQZlp00HR4thMwJZwfKEeqvhjYlOIXYIPyDef7cgHFwel 9we3/sUvyADIkhx/IMM6FDQLRY7HLmdcm+4RXJ7TiPEKUh+xB+UCwb19dUaUmt93TIFjfvqp0oZ cd6Khw2HwUD6lwgYVkedliuzu2Kp1uU4D0/28Dcw4PlNTUpnLlvNN3Z8xxzC/Pab+iVeGnNrPR5 GcMsLB4NnmmzU9AiDCtMgircbnS/+IljWppZe6CeAiCmPx4NwLTrdaH1ZWqCpvI8UZOf47j3PDi XO/tFSY6HM5rqDwqtKJcXjne1GuDSPkSfDAPtDY7bMiPhWNnbRmNmR+NhtJsfil+PmmCOAEo/o/ MMjeYvUKIoZ5tKGSeqgOzahV7eib/OCQInlEY2zYmTG4anLJyG/GDpGKou7Imhj6xi2aP9KJ2Fu yA8V1RgpVzC4/qm4JRMZUCEHkRt X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-12:0,22:0,33:0,34:0-0 X-SW-Source: 2018-02/txt/msg00061.txt.bz2 "Also sprach Tadeus Prastowo:" > Good. Now since you claimed that you were a mathematical logician in > one of the previous e-mails, I will let you know as a newcomer in this > mailing list that the set of axioms in this mailing list that you keep > posting to includes the proposition that said that "a discussion on > the C language issue is disallowed", another proposition that said I am not discussing the C language, let alone any "issue" you may or may not have with it. You see no opinion on C from me at all. I have not expressed whether or not I think the gcc computed goto is a good idea, for example (I don't like it but have never used it, and it surely has its place - it's semantically horrible, however, and gcc statements as expressions is also bad). It was quite a specific question: is gcc right in this instance. If you thought it was off topic for gcc-help, I would have been glad to ask elsewhere, at your suggestion. For the rest, I merely reply to what is emailed to me. My best guess from the weird replies is indeed that I've overtaxed the natives, unwittingly, and I apologise for that. I recall now, belatedly, that the "help" newsgroups for an area are generally for dispensing somewhat platitudinous advice to newbies. That explains a lot. > that "if a discussion is about a C language issue, then the discussion > is off-topic", and another proposition that said that "an off-topic What "C language issue" do you claim this is about? We want to know if gcc is right, since on the face of it it seemed to contradict the standard's pithy words on conversions. The correct response was "no it doesn't because 6.5 says that conversions are not applied for >> and 6.3.18 does not list >> among what things conversion is applied to and 6.1 says that nothing else than 6.5 defaulting to 6.3.18 is allowed". Fin. Instead, a hail of rubbish ensued, to which I conscienciously replied, nicely pointing out what was wrong with it, because I am a nice and kind person, and when somebody writes nonsense, I am nice and kind enough to correct them, less they continue to do so and hurt themselves. I should have been clever enough to realise I was talking to the janitor. > discussion shall not be discussed any longer." Nobody is discussing anything. The correct statement is as above: "signed >> unsigned" in gcc should not convert to "unsigned >> unsigned" even though that IS an "automatic" conversion in the standard because $6.5 says that conversions are not applied for >> and $6.3.18 does not list >> among things conversion is applied to and $6.1 says that nothing else than $6.5 defaulting to $6.3.18 SHALL BE allowed QED. It should not have been hard for you. > So, can't you stop now, please, you who claimed to be > http://dblp.uni-trier.de/pers/hd/b/Breuer:Peter_T= ? I did not claim it, and I insist you spell correctly, if at all. PTB