Subject: Re: [ub] [c++std-ext-14555] Sized integer types and char bits
From: Xavier Leroy (Xavier.Leroy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-10-21 06:49:32
On 2013-10-20 19:36, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> b. It is not clear that the support for one's complement or sign-magnitude
> adds a substantial complication, or that a substantial simplification
> of the standards specification is to be gained from introducing that
> requirement. For example, I don't think support for these binary
> representation would stop us from modifying the specification of
> signed integer arithmetic overflow -- my take-away from the Chicago
> meeting was that defining that be wrapping will be a very terrible idea
> would meet opposition.
I understand that signed integer overflow is a hot issue and wasn't
expecting drastic changes in this department.
The kind of simplifications I had in mind is, for instance, the
specification of bitwise operators (~ & | ^ and shifts) over signed
integers, which is both complicated and imprecise in the current
standards, and would become simpler and fully specified if two's
complement was mandated.
SG12 list run by herb.sutter at gmail.com