3 ms·
I prefer to think of "byte" as unsigned. Although I've never quite figured out why char is signed on most implementations, it would most naturally be unsigned t
by mark-r 10y ago
I prefer to think of "byte" as unsigned. Although I've never quite figured out why char is signed on most implementations, it would most naturally be unsigned too.
- lmm 10y agoI suspect because signed has more undefined behaviour. C compilers will always choose the option that gives them most optimization freedom since that's what they're judged on.
- qb45 10y agoWhat optimization opportunities does it give?
- zlynx 10y agoAdd 128 to a signed char and the compiler is free to assume it is zero/false (because undefined behavior) OR assume the value is always greater than 127 (because undefined behavior). Or if it compiles it into machine code, the result may depend on register width since it may or may not store it back into memory. Resulting in a value either larger than 127 or mod 128 depending on register pressure since the compiler isn't obligated to AND 0xFF because Undefined Behavior.
- qb45 10y ago> Add 128 to a signed char and the compiler is free to assume it is zero/false To be honest, I hope compilers don't do such things. I would vastly prefer to see it run Tower of Hanoi simulation in Emacs at this point. But evading bound-checking of 8bit math done in 32bit registers is totally reasonable (by the standard of usual UB optimizations), thanks.