On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 05:41:56PM -0700, Wayne Davison wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 04:54:20PM -0700, jw schultz wrote:
> > Having looked at that bit of code now. I am a bit concerned about the
> > use of shift operators on signed integers here.
>
> I don't see the problem with regard to thi
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 04:54:20PM -0700, jw schultz wrote:
> Having looked at that bit of code now. I am a bit concerned about the
> use of shift operators on signed integers here.
I don't see the problem with regard to this code because we're only
looking at bits that where known to exist in th
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 04:43:45PM -0700, Wayne Davison wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 07:29:24PM -0400, John E. Malmberg wrote:
> > Or should there be parenthesis around (n >> 8) to make sure that it
> > happens before the most significant part of "n" is discarded?
>
> Yes, there should be pare
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 07:29:24PM -0400, John E. Malmberg wrote:
> Or should there be parenthesis around (n >> 8) to make sure that it
> happens before the most significant part of "n" is discarded?
Yes, there should be parens there. Note that this bug only affects
batch mode (a fairly rare opti
[A repost under a new topic since the other seems to have been lost in
the noise]
I am basically down to one unresolved compilier diagnostic.
The HP/COMPAQ/DEC C compiler is concerned about this line in TOKEN.C
4 22136 temp_byte = (char) n >> 8;
