On Monday 18 January 2010 16:19:23 Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010, YuGr wrote:
> > But according to C99 Standard (see Usual arithmetic conversions,
> > 6.3.1.8):
>
> First the integer promotions are applied, so you need UCHAR_MAX not to be
> representable a
> So, is the test *actually* failing for some targets?
We are developing our own compiler for experimental target (pure scientific
activity) and we are using c-torture to test it. Our compiler has
sizeof(char) == sizeof(short) ( == 1) and fails with this test.
--
С уважением,
Юрий
> I have seen something similar in the past appearing on the mailing list
I guess that was also from me)
> Pragmatically, I don't think people are really happy to start including
> limits.h everywhere or even conditionalizing tests for the most exotic
> combination of the limits themselves
Probabl
Hi all,
I have recently run into a non-portable c-torture test
(gcc.c-torture/execute/20030128-1.c) and would like to suggest an update for
it.
The test performs division of unsigned char by (signed) short:
unsigned char x = 50;
volatile short y = -5;
int main ()
{
x /= y;
and checks that
