From:	ahelm AT gmx DOT net
Date:	Tue, 10 Apr 2001 11:25:11 +0200 (MEST)
To:	Jack Klein <jackklein AT spamcop DOT net>
Cc:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Cc:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: GCC 2.95.3 and C standard(s) + commandline switch problems
References:	<s015dt833n0o8k9r5f3odchi4dd7ic8bog AT 4ax DOT com>
Message-ID:	<7852.986894711@www49.gmx.net>
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Authenticated-Sender:	#0003579562 AT gmx DOT net
X-Mailer:	WWW-Mail 1.5 (Global Message Exchange)
X-Authenticated-IP:	[194.201.128.5]
X-Flags:	0001
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Jack,

> You are missing the application of the fourth paragraph at the first
> level of indentation under 6.2.1.5:
> 
>             Otherwise, the integer promotions are performed on both
>             operands.   Then the following rules are applied to the
>             promoted operands:
> 
> The result of the integer promotion rules is never anything smaller
> than an int.  The integer promotion rules themselves are described in
> 6.2.1.1. in C90 and 6.3.1.1 in C99.

Thank you for your hint. I'll look at this more closely.
 
>             Otherwise, the integer promotions are performed on both
>             operands.   Then the following rules are applied to the
>             promoted operands:
> 
> In fact this text is cut and pasted from a formatted copy of C99 that
> I have, but the wording is exactly identical to C89/C90.

It is similar but NOT identical. As you might remember the term 
"integer promotions" didn't exist in the old standard but there 
was "integral promotions". However this doesn't matter in this 
context. 
 
> > And 6.2.5 (new standard) or 6.1.2.5 (old standard):
>                               ^^^^^^^
> ITYM 6.2.1.5 again here.

No, 6.1.2.5 (Types) p23, 1st paragraph, last sentence.

Regards,

Tony

-- 
__________________________
Anton Helm
Farnborough, Hampshire, UK
mailto:ahelm AT gmx DOT net
phoneto:+44-1252-867200

Sent through GMX FreeMail - http://www.gmx.net

- Raw text -