Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="Eric Sosman, post: 3809897"]
That seems odd.  Stripped of obfuscation, the line
is merely

unsigned int mask = (unsigned int)~(0xffffffff << 5);

It is conceivable that the arithmetic in this initialization
would be undefined (for example, on a 36-bit system), but on
the far more common 32-bit machines it's just

unsigned int mask = 0x1fu;

.... which should be unobjectionable.

However, the next two line is suspect.  The "%d" specifier
requires a plain `int' value to convert, and you're feeding it
an `unsigned int' instead.  This produces undefined behavior,
which on most systems nowadays turns out to be nothing worse
than bad-looking output.  But under a debugging environment
like Purify, perhaps the consequences are more severe.  Are
you sure you've correctly identified the line Purify is unhappy
about?  Might it be complaining about the printf() and not the
initialization that immediately precedes it?

Possibly.  What does your IBM Support person think?
[/QUOTE]

Verification