Periodic reminder that you *think* you know what is undefined behavior and what is defined behavior in C, but you don'thttps://twitter.com/UINT_MIN/status/765945155572510720 …
-
-
Oh geez what a great and horrifying question
-
It's a property of bit fields. Some early implementations had signed, some unsigned, given int; same for but order.
-
Not undefined behaviour but implementation-defined
-
i feel like this response indicates you did not read the comments you are replying to
-
I certainly read the thread I was replying to, but apparently there's another substrate.
-
And having read the substrate, I don't think it explained why the C standard ended up having it as implementation-defined.
-
But probably I'm still missing the point.
-
I went back to this after Felker's recent tweet, which filled in the context I was missing, which adds another layer of horror to encourage restraint if one must use the things (ie, use explicit signed int, unsigned int in bit definitions). Bitfields never really worked out.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.