From: ahelm AT gmx DOT net Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 11:25:11 +0200 (MEST) To: Jack Klein 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: 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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