Date: Sun Nov 16 2003 - 05:20:00 PST
The following reply was made to PR errata/463; it has been noted by GNATS.
To: Steven Sharp <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: errata/463: Re: errata/463: another sign-extension issue
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 15:18:31 +0200 (IST)
> >4.1.10 is not dealt with in any other issue.
> >However, I had assumed that zero-extension instead of sign-extension is
> >the correct behavior for the bit-wise operators of 4.1.10.
> No, the rules in 4.5 should have superceded all of the various mentions
> of zero-extension left over from the 1995 standard. Unfortunately, 4.5
> isn't really complete and fails to mention some operators that it should.
> It needs work.
> This issue is an example of why I don't like "clarifications" that duplicate
> information in more than one place in the standard. When something needs to
> be changed or extended later, some of that duplicate information doesn't get
So what is the correct behavior for the bit-wise operators?
Shalom Bresticker Shalom.Bresticker@motorola.com
Design & Reuse Methodology Tel: +972 9 9522268
Motorola Semiconductor Israel, Ltd. Fax: +972 9 9522890
POB 2208, Herzlia 46120, ISRAEL Cell: +972 50 441478
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4
: Sun Nov 16 2003 - 05:20:02 PST
sponsored by Boyd Technology, Inc.