> -spc (Wish the C standard committee had the balls to say "2's > complement all the way, and a physical bit pattern of all 0s is a > NULL pointer" ... )
As far as I'm concerned, this is different only in degree from `Wish the C standard committee had the balls to say "Everything is x86".'. > [3] Often to disasterous results. An agressive C optimizer can > optimize the following right out: > if (x + 1 < x ) { ... } > Because "x+1" can *never* be less than "x" (signed overflow? > What's that?) More precisely, because signed overflow invokes undefined behaviour, meaning that, for values of x where x+1 overflows, the program can behave in any way whatever and still be within spec. Including, say, skipping the stuff inside the { } block. /~\ The ASCII Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML mo...@rodents-montreal.org / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B