operator >> on signed in c89

[Simon Aittamaa]

The value of E1 >> E2 when E1 has a signed type and is negative is
implementation-defined in c99 (6.5.7), is that the case for c89 as well?

I'm guessing it is but I would like to be sure. Does anyone have a good
web-resource of the c89 standard?

- Simon Aittamaa

 

[Eric Sosman]

Simon Aittamaa wrote On 10/12/05 14:19,:

The value of E1 >> E2 when E1 has a signed type and is negative is
implementation-defined in c99 (6.5.7), is that the case for c89 as well?

ANSI Classic 3.3.7 (probably a different section number
in ISO's version):

The result of E1 >> E2 is [...]. If E1 has a signed
type and a negative value, the resulting value is
implementation-defined.

 

[Simon Aittamaa]

Simon Aittamaa wrote On 10/12/05 14:19,:

The value of E1 >> E2 when E1 has a signed type and is negative is
implementation-defined in c99 (6.5.7), is that the case for c89 as well?

ANSI Classic 3.3.7 (probably a different section number
in ISO's version):

The result of E1 >> E2 is [...]. If E1 has a signed
type and a negative value, the resulting value is
implementation-defined.

Thanks

- Simon Aittamaa