On Wednesday, 2 September 2015 at 21:43:17 UTC, ponce wrote:
Additionally, I was said weeks ago on this NG that and signed
overflow in D is not actually Undefined Behaviour.
Interesting.. The reference is fairly terse on exactly what
happens, is it more formally specified anywhere? In which
On Wednesday, 2 September 2015 at 11:03:00 UTC, ponce wrote:
On Tuesday, 1 September 2015 at 23:06:50 UTC, John Carter wrote:
C/C++ discussion here
http://blog.robertelder.org/signed-or-unsigned-part-2/
D rules here...
http://dlang.org/type.html#integer-promotions
Everything
On Wednesday, 2 September 2015 at 21:22:59 UTC, John Carter wrote:
On Wednesday, 2 September 2015 at 11:03:00 UTC, ponce wrote:
Everything Bjarne said still applies equally to D code, since
integer promotion is identical with C from what I understand.
Hmm. What Robert Elder says also
On Wednesday, 2 September 2015 at 09:47:16 UTC, BBasile wrote:
On Tuesday, 1 September 2015 at 23:06:50 UTC, John Carter wrote:
C/C++ discussion here
http://blog.robertelder.org/signed-or-unsigned-part-2/
D rules here...
http://dlang.org/type.html#integer-promotions
It depends on
On Tuesday, 1 September 2015 at 23:06:50 UTC, John Carter wrote:
C/C++ discussion here
http://blog.robertelder.org/signed-or-unsigned-part-2/
D rules here...
http://dlang.org/type.html#integer-promotions
It depends on the context.
You should take care of blending signed and
On Tuesday, 1 September 2015 at 23:06:50 UTC, John Carter wrote:
C/C++ discussion here
http://blog.robertelder.org/signed-or-unsigned-part-2/
D rules here...
http://dlang.org/type.html#integer-promotions
Everything Bjarne said still applies equally to D code, since
integer
C/C++ discussion here
http://blog.robertelder.org/signed-or-unsigned-part-2/
D rules here...
http://dlang.org/type.html#integer-promotions
