https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83710
--- Comment #8 from Chanpreet Singh <chanpreet.singh at nxp dot com> --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7) > You shouldn't read random blogs, but the standard of the language you are > writing in. > E.g. in n3797.pdf it is in [expr]/10: > "Otherwise, the integral promotions (4.5) shall be performed on both > operands. Then the following rules shall be applied to the promoted operands: > — If both operands have the same type, no further conversion is needed. > — Otherwise, if both operands have signed integer types or both have > unsigned integer types, the operand with the type of lesser integer > conversion rank shall be converted to the type of the operand with greater > rank. > — Otherwise, if the operand that has unsigned integer type has rank greater > than or equal to the rank of the type of the other operand, the operand with > signed integer type shall be converted to the type of the operand with > unsigned integer type. > — Otherwise, if the type of the operand with signed integer type can > represent all of the values of the type of the operand with unsigned integer > type, the operand with unsigned integer type shall be converted to the type > of the operand with signed integer type. > — Otherwise, both operands shall be converted to the unsigned integer type > corresponding to the type of the operand with signed integer type. Thanks! Found more pointers in the documentation. I usually follow "preserve signedness of the type" but thats not the case here.
