C Language, Bitset examples from the FAQ (unsigned char?)

Bitset examples from the FAQ (unsigned char?)

Author	Message
Clint Olse #1 / 4	Bitset examples from the FAQ (unsigned char?) Steve posted some examples of bitset macros in the clc FAQ. I also googled back a bit and he posted a full example in which he uses this (and more) macros to accomplish this task. In his example, he packs the bits into arrays of char. My question is, why didn't he use unsigned char which is recommended for bit fiddling? Or are all the operations he's performing considered safe? Rather than reposting the code, I'll just put the URL here: http://www.--*.com/ :comp.lang.c+bitnslots&hl=en&l... Thanks, -Clint
Mon, 19 Sep 2005 05:38:57 GMT

Malcol #2 / 4	Bitset examples from the FAQ (unsigned char?) Quote: > In his example, he packs the bits into arrays of char. My question is, why > didn't he use unsigned char which is recommended for bit fiddling? Or are > all the operations he's performing considered safe? Steve goofed. unsigned char for arbitrary data, or else you may get a trap representation.
Mon, 19 Sep 2005 06:58:44 GMT

Eric Sosma #3 / 4	Bitset examples from the FAQ (unsigned char?) Quote: > Steve posted some examples of bitset macros in the clc FAQ. I also googled > back a bit and he posted a full example in which he uses this (and more) > macros to accomplish this task. > In his example, he packs the bits into arrays of char. My question is, why > didn't he use unsigned char which is recommended for bit fiddling? Or are > all the operations he's performing considered safe? He should be using `unsigned char' rather than plain `char'. For even more safety, the macro #define BITMASK(b) (1 << ((b) % CHAR_BIT)) should be written as #define BITMASK(b) (1u << ((b) % CHAR_BIT)) ... so it will work correctly even when sizeof(int) is 1. --
Mon, 19 Sep 2005 07:16:12 GMT

Clint Olse #4 / 4	Bitset examples from the FAQ (unsigned char?) Quote: > #define BITMASK(b) (1u << ((b) % CHAR_BIT)) > ... so it will work correctly even when sizeof(int) is 1. Ahh, good catch. So, is the FAQ going to get updated with this information? Having to double-check the FAQ with Google seems a bit clumsy :) -Clint
Mon, 19 Sep 2005 16:39:43 GMT

Page 1 of 1

[ 4 post ]