"Also sprach Jonathan Wakely:" > > On 6 February 2018 at 18:37, Tadeus Prastowo wrote: > > @Peter Breuer: it seems that you are not very knowledgeable about the > > internals of the C language. Hence, I would like to invite you to Amusing. Byt as the infamous author of a much used higher order compiler compiler in C, a linear logic model checker for C, about 4 different user-driven languages that I can recall written in C, ranging from a persistent higher order lazy functional language to a decompiler compiler, and a mathematical logician well known as a programming languages semanticist who has given denotational, operational and logical semantics to many programming, machine and specification languages, etc etc etc, "I don't think so". Try sf.net/p/obfusc for the current snapshots of the encrypting, ofuscating C compiler. > > study this very good resource on the internals of the C language: > > http://publications.gbdirect.co.uk/c_book/. > > And maybe find somewhere else to discuss it. "I don't understand the C > standard" is not a GCC problem, so doesn't belong on this mailing Please desist from ad hominen attacks. If you have a problem with my reasoning in any particlar instance, please state it with specificity. From the lack of valid argument, I guess the problem seems to be that the spec has boobooed in this instance. I would be grateful if you do manage to find somewhere in the spec that allows the conversion thang not to be done for >>. I now don't know for sure what needs to be done here. Regards PTB
