On 5 April 2013 10:11, Peter Crosthwaite <peter.crosthwa...@xilinx.com> wrote: > But I thought about this more, and perhaps just ditch the ? anyway, > and rely on the shift by 64 ending up as 0.
That's undefined behaviour, please don't. -- PMM
On 5 April 2013 10:11, Peter Crosthwaite <peter.crosthwa...@xilinx.com> wrote: > But I thought about this more, and perhaps just ditch the ? anyway, > and rely on the shift by 64 ending up as 0.
That's undefined behaviour, please don't. -- PMM