int a, unsigned int b) {
const unsigned int sum = a + b;
return ((a & 0x80) == (b & 0x80)) && ((a & 0x80) != (sum & 0x80));
}
But it is not as efficient as yours.
--
Pedro Pedruzzi
lea(%rsi,%rdi,1),%eax
400527: 31 f8 xor%edi,%eax
400529: 31 f7 xor%esi,%edi
40052b: f7 d7 not%edi
40052d: 21 f8 and%edi,%eax
40052f: 25 80 00 00 00 and$0x80,%eax
400534: c3 retq
--
Pedro Pedruzzi
Em 07-10-2011 02:35, Miles Bader escreveu:
> Pedro Pedruzzi writes:
>> On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Miles Bader wrote:
>>> How about:
>>>
>>> bool overflowbit2(unsigned int a, unsigned int b)
>>> {
>>> const unsigned i
.var);
ptr = &str.var;
}
Is this the expected behavior in this case?
I don't think so. And I guess gcc is missing it by trusting the type's
(short) alignment requirement instead of the variable's (str.var
requires just byte-alignment).
Does anyone think this is an is
On 03-05-2010 00:47 wuyin wrote:
struct T{
int n;
};
struct T1{
struct T;
} t;
t.n=1;
Please support this grammar.
I believe it _is_ currently supported with -fms-extensions.
See:
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Unnamed-Fields.html
Regards,
--
Pedro Pedruzzi
effect of bug #38341 ?
Thanks,
--
Pedro Pedruzzi
