Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Keith Thompson Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: What is your opinion about unsigned int u = -2 ? Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2024 14:28:34 -0700 Organization: None to speak of Lines: 21 Message-ID: <871q2cfg1p.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> References: <87bk2cecan.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <87r0b6g3qx.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <87h6c2fldh.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <878qxefjk2.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <87zfpue3bz.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <6c6ncjt5eqpnslpu583hburcu6fkgl7g6a@4ax.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2024 23:28:35 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="40ee2afb4f283fffad3dfce85eeabfde"; logging-data="2207701"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19N9adVOqyYFPC6T0FleEpD" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Cancel-Lock: sha1:0e9wNIfwyN7zOjTWF6lj623uAaY= sha1:AtjTa4nKCBrOOTgFcY5nWkuRffY= Bytes: 2230 dave_thompson_2@comcast.net writes: > On Fri, 02 Aug 2024 19:40:32 -0700, Keith Thompson > wrote: >> Thiago Adams 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) Quite right, thanks. -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */