Gollum@feddit.de to Programmer Humor@programming.dev · 1 年前I mean it could be righti.imgur.comimagemessage-square19fedilinkarrow-up1274arrow-down115
arrow-up1259arrow-down1imageI mean it could be righti.imgur.comGollum@feddit.de to Programmer Humor@programming.dev · 1 年前message-square19fedilink
minus-squareabbadon420@lemm.eelinkfedilinkarrow-up32arrow-down1·1 年前The third one is just (x=x+1), because the middle bit is just always false and can be ignored.
minus-squarerhpp@programming.devlinkfedilinkarrow-up11·1 年前Still false, thanks to compiler optimizations. Remember that integer overflow is UB. (unless you’re using unsigned int or a programming language which strictly defines integer overflow, possibly as an error) P.S.: Assuming this is C/C++
minus-squarechellomere@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up2·edit-21 年前No, because it’s UB, the compiler is free to do whatever, like making demons fly out of your nose
The third one is just (x=x+1), because the middle bit is just always false and can be ignored.
What if int overflows? Is it still false?
Still false, thanks to compiler optimizations. Remember that integer overflow is UB. (unless you’re using unsigned int or a programming language which strictly defines integer overflow, possibly as an error)
P.S.: Assuming this is C/C++
No, because it’s UB, the compiler is free to do whatever, like making demons fly out of your nose