On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 9:15 AM, Phil Hord <phil.hord@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Yes, I can tell by the wording of the error message that you are right
> and clang has a problem. But the git code it complained about does
> have a real problem, because the result of "signed int a = ULONG_MAX"
> is implementation-defined.
Only theoretically.
Git won't work on machines that don't have 8-bit bytes anyway, so
worrying about the theoretical crazy architectures that aren't two's
complement etc isn't something I'd care about.
There's a whole class of "technically implementation-defined" issues
in C that simply aren't worth caring for. Yes, the standard is written
so that it works on machines that aren't byte-addressable, or EBCDIC
or have things like 18-bit words and 36-bit longwords. Or 16-bit "int"
for microcontrollers etc.
That doesn't make those "implementation-defined" issues worth worrying
about these days. A compiler writer could in theory make up some
idiotic rules that are still "valid by the C standard" even on modern
machines, but such a compiler should simply not be used, and the
compiler writer in question should be called out for being an ass-hat.
Paper standards are only worth so much. And that "so much" really
isn't very much.
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html