Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: dave_thompson_2@comcast.net
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: What is your opinion about unsigned int u = -2 ?
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2024 16:52:30 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <6c6ncjt5eqpnslpu583hburcu6fkgl7g6a@4ax.com>
References: <pan$d2c8a$8c54ac9f$29a202e0$12c6ce86@invalid.invalid> <87bk2cecan.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <v8inds$2qpqh$1@dont-email.me> <v8iqnr$7l3c$1@news.xmission.com> <v8irje$2rolg$1@dont-email.me> <87r0b6g3qx.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <v8jbj5$2us0r$4@dont-email.me> <v8jvln$33atp$1@dont-email.me> <87h6c2fldh.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <v8k21v$33nca$1@dont-email.me> <878qxefjk2.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <v8k4i7$37tvs$1@dont-email.me> <87zfpue3bz.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2024 22:52:39 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="09f9e4e3fd1f3f0a9b1d8559f78a3163";
	logging-data="2199678"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/2g1kWKOKq+VCC+Z5V7P6woCgpZkSbX3E="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:jG8C1sKaqwbfO63JZqsCZBTD/xM=
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 3.3/32.846
Bytes: 1942

On Fri, 02 Aug 2024 19:40:32 -0700, Keith Thompson
<Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> writes:

> > I think both cases (overflow and wraparound) should have warnings.
> 
> You're free to think that, of course, but wraparound behavior is well
> defined and unambiguous.  I wouldn't mind an *optional* warning, but
> plenty of programmers might deliberately write something like
> 
>     const unsigned int max = -1;
> 
> with the reasonable expectation that it will set max to INT_MAX.
> 
(cough) UINT_MAX (cough)