Comments for Hard to C

Comment on Time Difference by mouser

mouser — Sat, 29 Dec 2012 21:49:12 +0000

Very entertaining read. It’s also interesting to think about options for displaying the duration with different levels of detail depending on the time frame — like when to round and how much detail to provide based on the duration.

Comment on System Up Time by Daniel

Daniel — Fri, 14 Sep 2012 17:43:28 +0000

The QueryPerformanceFrequency and QueryPerformanceCounter pair of functions work fine for me if you just need some kind of clock that increments constantly w/o adjustments (such as the system clock):

#include

LARGE_INTEGER f, c;

QueryPerformanceFrequency(&f);
QueryPerformanceCounter(&c);

std::cout << c.QuadPart / f.QuadPart << std::endl;

Comment on INT_MIN by Smashing the Stack, IO – Level 2 | A Tale of Glim

Smashing the Stack, IO – Level 2 | A Tale of Glim — Sun, 29 Jul 2012 20:37:58 +0000

[...] quick Google came up with a blog entry covering the nature of the definition of INT_MIN, which is worth the read if so inclined. This [...]

Comment on INT_MIN by David

David — Thu, 08 Sep 2011 08:10:55 +0000

Oops. I need to read harder.

Comment on INT_MIN by David

David — Thu, 08 Sep 2011 08:09:50 +0000

Typo: (-32766 – 1)

Comment on INT_MIN by Robin

Robin — Thu, 08 Sep 2011 07:57:41 +0000

@ Peter Hamilton

Because you’re compiling it as a 64-bit application on your 64-bit OS. The article is pointing out a 32-bit problem. If you compile the source code with “-arch i386″, forcing it as a 32-bit executable, the test will work.

Comment on INT_MIN by Jibz

Jibz — Thu, 08 Sep 2011 05:35:00 +0000

Thank you for the comments (even if the post is a few years old, I believe the issue remains).

Peter, normally I would expect GCC to default to C89 (with extensions) which should show ‘positive’. I wonder if it being a LLVM version makes a difference?

Josh, that is an interesting observation, thanks for the link!

lowell, it looks like clang follows the C99 standard mostly, so the output is expected, but it is a bit surprising it does not produce any warnings at all.

Comment on INT_MIN by lowell

lowell — Thu, 08 Sep 2011 01:34:47 +0000

WTF; NM. This was on HN so I thought it was new; didn’t notice the 2009 dates on the comments or the post itself.

Comment on INT_MIN by lowell

lowell — Thu, 08 Sep 2011 01:32:56 +0000

Clang in OS X Lion 10.7.2:

$ clang signed.c -o signed -Wall
$ ./signed
negative
equal
floating

Comment on INT_MIN by foolhunger

foolhunger — Thu, 08 Sep 2011 00:55:10 +0000

Great! I have saw this on CSAPP before, and the C99 output surprised me:)