From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,4215feeab2a8154a
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!fdn.fr!gegeweb.org!aioe.org!not-for-mail
From: John McCabe <john@nospam.assen.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: C++0x and Threads - a poor relation to Ada's tasking model?
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 15:54:31 +0100
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <fhua85diml8s6bq53e6t6435j00of7kc3l@4ax.com>
References: <wcc8whovk76.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <850893f5-46e5-443f-af0f-f16eef5cfa37@n2g2000vba.googlegroups.com>
  <hm5885t02rttpp8lppg5gtib804at4tca8@4ax.com>
 <ea76ae4c-11c2-4986-ab72-78f5ece43a76@p36g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>
  <v7ha85hhe7d4npss2r4974s6kbv41jq1gh@4ax.com>
 <57766742-5e6e-4b68-8094-57db1fa8951d@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>
  <2kra85p2lsrd7200mcfr9fn65s123468br@4ax.com>
 <625c577b-9097-4a8d-a9cb-dd986dd81f89@h30g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: RXEkuaSUwmKe0XIGFYSK7A.user.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.7.9
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652
Cancel-Lock: sha1:XJuvQ37uVlCpq1uxxRsZV81huL0=
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:7791
Date: 2009-08-14T15:54:31+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 07:49:12 -0700 (PDT), REH <spamjunk@stny.rr.com>
wrote:

>On Aug 14, 10:30�am, John McCabe <j...@nospam.assen.demon.co.uk>
>wrote:
>> Not significantly as far as I can see; C++ says behaviour on overflow
>> on signed integers is undefined, and C seems to say that it's up to
>> the implementation (which seems like the same thing). Both say
>> unsigned overflow doesn't occur because they use modulo arithmetic.
>>
>> Unless of course I'm looking in the wrong place.
>>
>
>No, you're not. They both say that signed integer overflow is
>undefined behavior.

Good. One day I will go through some more of that standard, unless I
get my wish and we start using Ada here :-}

> They diverge when it comes to other portability
>guarantees.

Of course, but I was referring just to this example when using
"C/C++"!

>This is, of course, pedantry on my part but
>I just wanted to show that isn't safe to assume that C and C++ share
>the same rules.

That's something I was aware of but it's always worth reminding me :-)