No warning. Change to uint8_t, I do get a warning.
Wait. It might be because of something implementation. I'll run a test.
EDIT: Now I get a warning for both.
I see now. It's basically the same behavior as if doing with native types.
My fears are unfounded. Good.Code:uint8_t i = 0; i += 0xFFFF; // Truncation i += -1; // Signed/unsigned
Last edited by Elysia; 05-31-2008 at 11:04 AM.
Originally Posted by Adak
I didn't say not to use templates. I'm against the notion of not using templates.However, I still see no reason as to not use templates.
No, but they can be used to express such a thing; even dumb C macros are capable of that.They are a generic way of doing the same thing for an infinite range of types, right?
You need to learn the difference between a class and a template class.Since all types would be handled the same, I see it as a means to remove code duplication and maintenance for the class.
The point stands, a template class can most certainly benefit from doing things properly because it may benefit every instantiation.
You can't specialize a template method; you can only specialize the behavior or overload the interface/implementation.The real beauty lies in that I can specialize a template if I need a specific type to behave differently.
Why attempt a specialization or partial specialization at some later point if you find you require a compiler that doesn't handle temporaries/forwarding well?
Well, anyway, you have a possibility and a possible proof that it isn't useful here--as provided by CornedBee. So, what are you going to do with them?
Soma
I've already changed it to:
And it seems to behave just as with normal integers, so I'm all happy now with less complexityCode:CInt& operator %= (const CInt& Data);
Ah yes, quick question:
I'm trying to check for overflow/underflow, but instead of taking into account everything (including the possibility of negative numbers) and using templates/traits for max/min range of numbers, isn't there some assembly equalient that can check for overflow/underflow?
I'm not sure if there are some other functions that may check or if it's possible to check in assembly after the operation has been done (ie check flags)?
Suggestions?
It depends on the architecture and operation, but I think 'x86' has a flag that it sets after an operation is performed if any overflow/underflow occurs.I'm trying to check for overflow/underflow, but instead of taking into account everything (including the possibility of negative numbers) and using templates/traits for max/min range of numbers, isn't there some assembly equalient that can check for overflow/underflow?
Soma
Why is this thread nearly 300 replies long?
Haven't you fixed the original problem yet, or is this just a meandering "Elysia" support thread?
Just a suggestion, but if these are new questions, they should be new threads, with links if you think it's relevant.
If you dance barefoot on the broken glass of undefined behaviour, you've got to expect the occasional cut.
If at first you don't succeed, try writing your phone number on the exam paper.
Oh, I could fit in a 100 questions to this generic topic title, but if you insist, I can make new threads.
But I found it exciting to enlarge the thread and see how many replies could get crammed into it.
Yes, it's x86. I don't do much other than Windows™ programming.
I'd rather do it in assembly than a fat code and additional complications to check for under/overflow.
I'll try looking in an assembly manual.
So?! If you don't want "fat" code, write "lean" code. I mean: hack away...I'd rather do it in assembly than a fat code and additional complications to check for under/overflow.
Soma
hackersdelight.org
