Christian Böhme wrote: > Andrew Haley wrote: > >>> That was the whole point of the OP (Did you read the subject ?). >> >> Unfortunately I did. yes. > > Yet you keep going. Why ? To try to discover the substance of the complaint, if any. >> The operands, and the result, are all of type unsigned int, which >> presumably is 32 bits in this case. > > And given that integral promotions according to [conv.prom] only > promote as far as to unsigned int as the type with the highest > conversion rank, where was there intergal promotion applied, > again ? It's not: the operands are unsigned int, and stay that way. >> So what? The compiler does what the standard says it must. > > Which was the actual incentive for the OP. I thought you were complaining about the compiler, not the standard. >> Right: the compiler can use such an instruction, but it must discard >> the upper part of the result. > > And _here_ is where the standard screws up. In your opinion. >> "The correct result"? The correct result is whatever the standard >> says it is. > > However counter-intuitive to anyone knowing what linear algebra is it > may possibly seem. That's right. Andrew.
