> Unless you are programming directly in assembly, the most important take-home from the article is probably the "Bonus chatter" at the end: shifts equal to or

> Unless you are programming directly in assembly, the most important take-home from the article is probably the "Bonus chatter" at the end: shifts equal to or greater than register size are undefined in C and C++. The article claims UB only at greater but not at equal: > Bonus chatter: The wide variety of behavior when shifting by more than the register size is one of the reasons why the C and C++ languages leave undefined what happens when you shift by more than the bit width of the shifted type. If think your "equal to or greater" is correct, and the article is wrong. The reason might be that the instructions are defined up to including equal for many hardware. I remember checking one case that included equal as valid for only one of left/right shift and invalid for the other (left/right encoded in 5 bit signed).