On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 5:17 PM, Peter T. Breuer <ptb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > "Also sprach Tadeus Prastowo:" >> > ...................................... The type of E1 is UNSIGNED INT >> > by the type promotion/conversion rules I quoted. >> >> To quote the same document's Section 6.5.7 Paragraph 3: The integer >> promotions are performed on each of the operands. The type of the >> result is that of the promoted left operand. End quote. [...] > So I don't see the final sentence > as relevant. It is relevant. See below. > (I'm quoting something at CMU, rather than wherever you are quoting > from, > https://wiki.sei.cmu.edu/confluence/display/c/INT02-C.+Understand+integer+conversion+rules > simply because I have to quote something and that's what google is > showing me) Which "standard" are you going to follow? CMU's one, which you quoted, or the one followed by GCC, which is the ISO-IEC 9899:1999, which I quoted and whose link I gave you already in my first response to you? > We should be looking at the rules for conversions, not promotions. > >> So, E1 has type signed int, hasn't it? [...] > I agree as far > as that goes (see end of para) [...] > I contend we are then supposed additionally > to CONVERT, not promote, by the "usual arithmetic conversion" rules. So, by the second sentence of the ISO-IEC paragraph at the top of this e-mail, the second sentence that you said irrelevant, you know that E1 >> E2 has the type of E1 after integer promotion. Now you contend that there must be a conversion. One possibility is by the assignment operator. But, as you can see, the type of the expression E1 >> E2 already matches the type of the left operand of the assignment operator. So, no conversion takes place. If you still argue that a conversion must take place, now it is your turn to quote the ISO-IEC 9899:1999 document to support your argument. > Regards > > PTB -- Best regards, Tadeus
