[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Autoconf manual's coverage of signed integer overflow & portability
From: |
Gabriel Dos Reis |
Subject: |
Re: Autoconf manual's coverage of signed integer overflow & portability |
Date: |
03 Jan 2007 10:32:06 +0100 |
Paul Eggert <address@hidden> writes:
| Here are further patches I checked into the Autoconf documentation to
| reflect today's comments (some of which I received privately). Thanks
| to all of you. The trickiest bit was documenting one simple way to
| reliably detect overflow without converting to unsigned and back.
| (At least, I hope it's reliable....)
I have noted earlier that the GNU implementation of C++ standard's
std::numeric_limits<T>::is_modulo has been reporting "true" for over
half a decade now, when T is a signed integral type. I don't know where
that fits in the equation but surely it tells people that they can
count on wrapping for signed integer arithmetic.
-- Gaby
- Re: Autoconf manual's coverage of signed integer overflow & portability, (continued)
- Re: Autoconf manual's coverage of signed integer overflow & portability, Paul Eggert, 2007/01/03
- Re: Autoconf manual's coverage of signed integer overflow & portability, Andrew Pinski, 2007/01/03
- Re: Autoconf manual's coverage of signed integer overflow & portability, Paul Eggert, 2007/01/03
- Re: Autoconf manual's coverage of signed integer overflow & portability, Andrew Haley, 2007/01/03
- RE: Autoconf manual's coverage of signed integer overflow & portability, Meissner, Michael, 2007/01/13
- Re: Autoconf manual's coverage of signed integer overflow & portability,
Gabriel Dos Reis <=
Re: Autoconf manual's coverage of signed integer overflow & portability, Robert Dewar, 2007/01/02
Re: Autoconf manual's coverage of signed integer overflow & portability, Russell Shaw, 2007/01/02
Re: Autoconf manual's coverage of signed integer overflow & portability, Andrew Pinski, 2007/01/02