Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Eric Sosman, post: 3971296"] This does "something" if MASK and BIT_TO_CHECK have no 1-bits at corresponding positions, that is, if any 1-bit in MASK corresponds to a 0-bit in BIT_TO_CHECK. This does "something" if MASK has any 1-bit at the same position where BIT_TO_CHECK has a 0-bit. Same effect ... ... except that there's a small risk of trouble with the ~ operator if BIT_TO_CHECK is a signed type (best avoided when doing bit-fiddling) or if it promotes to a signed type (likely if BIT_TO_CHECK is an unsigned char, unsigned short, or unsigned bit-field). The first form has no such risk. [/QUOTE]