Subject: Re: Validity of conversions between 4 byte-like types (byte, char) objects
From: Bo Persson (bo_at_[hidden])
Date: 2019-12-12 03:54:16
On 2019-12-11 at 19:09, Roman Babinicz via Std-Discussion wrote:
> On 11/12/2019 17:26, Thiago Macieira wrote:
>> The integer conversions are very well explained in the standard. Converting
>> from signed to unsigned is such that any non-negative values retain their
>> values and any negative ones are represented as TYPE_MAX + 1 -
> in e.g. C++14, which points of standard define the negative values as
> above to be converted into TYPE_MAX + 1 - absolute(value) ?
> It was my understanding that the converted value in such case depends on
> the binary representation of negative integers, and it would be as you
> written on platforms with 2's complement - but could differ on others.
> C++14 4.7(.2) [conv.integral] mentions what would happen in two's
> complement representation - but that "Note" text seems to only apply to
> situation in which we know that the two's complement is used for the
> signed type.
> And in C++14 that is not guaranteed afaik.
No, it is not *guaranteed* by the standard, but in practice it is. There
are no known C++ compilers for any other type of machines.
So in C++20 two's complement is the only possible representation.
Because that is all that exists.
> Which is why I thought that for some values it is implementation defined
> what will be the result of assigning signed int into unsigned int.
Even if it is implementation defined, all existing implementations will
define it as two's complement.
So if you write some ones' complement version of your code, you will
have an *extremely* hard time trying to test it anywhere. :-)
STD-DISCUSSION list run by firstname.lastname@example.org
Older Archives on Google Groups