Re: Strange bit shifting result with gcc - am I missing something obvious?

Boltar <boltar2003@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> It isn't? Thats bloody annoying since that means i'll have to do a
> specific check for the bit shift count being > than the size of the
> type being shifted.

The theory is it's better to have to have an explicit check for the
relatively small amount of code that needs it than to have the compiler
always generate for the vast majority of code that doesn't need it.

-Larry Jones

OK, what's the NEXT amendment say?  I know it's in here someplace. -- Calvin