"Also sprach Jonathan Wakely:" > > On 6 February 2018 at 20:08, Tadeus Prastowo wrote: > > Jonathan is not attacking you. > > Well I am now, because he's insisting on continuing his off-topic > wanderings through the C standard. The question is if gcc is following the C standard. You are counselled not to do the attacking thing, unless you would like to be e-sat on and e-fingered by the e-police, or just generally villified and derided as that e-wit throughout the Internet and the e-iverse in general. To summarize what we know: 6.1.3.8 of many C standards contains a list of for what operators conversions should be applied "automatically", which means "without a cast", which means "implicitly". That list is prescriptive except inasmuch as it is countermanded and/or overridden by the one-by-one details of the operators in 6.5. There is nothing else that applies, as the authority at the start of section 6.1 says. That is all. In the case that I used to exemplify the situation, there are no promotions (ints are already the args) and there are no conversions because >> is not listed for conversions in 6.1.3.8 AND its own paragraph in 6.5 does not say "conversions" (it says "promotions" instead) AND 6.1 says that is all. Done. Exercise - try it with long long int in place of int. Thank you for your contribution. Regards PTB
