On Monday, Feb 23, 2004, at 00:23 Europe/Copenhagen, Sterling Hughes
wrote:
At 00:23 23/02/2004 +0100, Edin Kadribasic wrote:
On Sunday, Feb 22, 2004, at 23:57 Europe/Copenhagen, Andi Gutmans
wrote:
Can someone check this on a non-intel CPU with a 32bit int?
gcc 3.3 produces the same warning (t
> At 00:23 23/02/2004 +0100, Edin Kadribasic wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, Feb 22, 2004, at 23:57 Europe/Copenhagen, Andi Gutmans wrote:
> >>Can someone check this on a non-intel CPU with a 32bit int?
> >
> >gcc 3.3 produces the same warning (this decimal constant is unsigned only
> >in ISO C90) on Powe
At 00:23 23/02/2004 +0100, Edin Kadribasic wrote:
On Sunday, Feb 22, 2004, at 23:57 Europe/Copenhagen, Andi Gutmans wrote:
Can someone check this on a non-intel CPU with a 32bit int?
gcc 3.3 produces the same warning (this decimal constant is unsigned only
in ISO C90) on PowerPC G4. The code prod
On Sunday, Feb 22, 2004, at 23:57 Europe/Copenhagen, Andi Gutmans wrote:
Can someone check this on a non-intel CPU with a 32bit int?
gcc 3.3 produces the same warning (this decimal constant is unsigned
only in ISO C90) on PowerPC G4. The code produces no floating point
exceptions though. c at the
Andi Gutmans wrote:
At 23:49 22/02/2004 +0100, Michael Walter wrote:
No, -2147483648 is the lower bound and 2147483647 is the upper bound for
signed integers.
-2147483648 = 1000
2147483647 = 0111
it still doesn't explain the FPE here. What d
Sterling Hughes wrote:
George Schlossnagle wrote:
On Feb 22, 2004, at 5:15 PM, Derick Rethans wrote:
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's generating an idivl, which gives you an exception if the (signed)
result is too large (a.k.a. integer overflow).
Did you notice your compiler w
At 23:49 22/02/2004 +0100, Michael Walter wrote:
No, -2147483648 is the lower bound and 2147483647 is the upper bound for
signed integers.
-2147483648 = 1000
2147483647 = 0111
it still doesn't explain the FPE here. What does explain it is th
> George Schlossnagle wrote:
> >
> >On Feb 22, 2004, at 5:15 PM, Derick Rethans wrote:
> >
> >>On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >>>It's generating an idivl, which gives you an exception if the (signed)
> >>>result is too large (a.k.a. integer overflow).
> >>>
> >>>Did you notice
George Schlossnagle wrote:
On Feb 22, 2004, at 5:15 PM, Derick Rethans wrote:
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's generating an idivl, which gives you an exception if the (signed)
result is too large (a.k.a. integer overflow).
Did you notice your compiler warning "this decimal const
Derick Rethans wrote:
>> [embarassing mistake]
No, -2147483648 is the lower bound and 2147483647 is the upper bound for
signed integers.
Yes of course.
-2147483648 = 1000
2147483647 = 0111
it still doesn't explain the FPE here. What does exp
On Feb 22, 2004, at 5:15 PM, Derick Rethans wrote:
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's generating an idivl, which gives you an exception if the (signed)
result is too large (a.k.a. integer overflow).
Did you notice your compiler warning "this decimal constant is
unsigned
only in IS
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> It's generating an idivl, which gives you an exception if the (signed)
> result is too large (a.k.a. integer overflow).
>
> Did you notice your compiler warning "this decimal constant is unsigned
> only in ISO C90"? ;)
Yes I did
> +2147483648 is: 10
Derick Rethans wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Feb 2004, Derick Rethans wrote:
>
>
>>On Sun, 22 Feb 2004, Andi Gutmans wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Huh? What platform crashes? Can you send reproducible C code?
>>
>>int main(void) {
>>long a = -2147483648;
>>long b = -1;
>>long c;
>>
>>c = a % b;
>>}
>
>
> D
On Sun, 2004-02-22 at 21:49, Derick Rethans wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Feb 2004, Derick Rethans wrote:
[...]
> Does anybody has a clue *why* this gives a floating point error btw?
Works fine with GCC 3.2.2, GCC 2.95.4 spits out "Internal compiler error
in `float_signal', at toplev.c:2442", which I pasted
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004, Michael Spector wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Feb 2004, Derick Rethans wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 22 Feb 2004, Derick Rethans wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, 22 Feb 2004, Andi Gutmans wrote:
> > >
> > > > Huh? What platform crashes? Can you send reproducible C code?
> > >
> > > int main(void) {
> >
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004, Derick Rethans wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Feb 2004, Derick Rethans wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 22 Feb 2004, Andi Gutmans wrote:
> >
> > > Huh? What platform crashes? Can you send reproducible C code?
> >
> > int main(void) {
> > long a = -2147483648;
> > long b = -1;
> > long c
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004, Derick Rethans wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Feb 2004, Andi Gutmans wrote:
>
> > Huh? What platform crashes? Can you send reproducible C code?
>
> int main(void) {
> long a = -2147483648;
> long b = -1;
> long c;
>
> c = a % b;
> }
Does anybody has a clue *why* this giv
Zeev Suraski wrote:
> zeev Sun Sep 14 13:37:01 2003 EDT
>
> Modified files:
> /ZendEngine2 zend_operators.c
> Log:
> Commit 64-bit fixes to the standard operators
> by Ard Biesheuvel ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
e:\home\php\php5\zend\zend_operators.c(672): error C2065:
'SIZEOF
18 matches
Mail list logo
