Boost logo

Boost :

From: Alexander Grund (alexander.grund_at_[hidden])
Date: 2021-01-28 08:16:02

>> ((uint32_t) -1) assumed equivalent to 0xFFFFFFFFu (which is not
>> guaranteed)
> Is it not? IIRC, by the standard C++ the above is equivalent to
> `(uint32_t)((uint32_t)0u - 1)`, which must give 0xFFFFFFFF.

It is. To be exact `(uint32_t) -1` is defined to be `2^32 - 1` by the
C++ standard and that is indeed `0xFFFFFFFFu`
Note that this is only true for conversions *to* unsigned types, but
C++20 might have changed that too.

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at