From: Endlisnis <s257m AT unb DOT ca>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: Infinite loop???
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1998 13:37:00 -0300
Organization: University of New Brunswick
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.96.980711133217.25617C-100000@sol.sun.csd.unb.ca>
References: <35A3D8C3 DOT 208E6D23 AT cyberdude DOT com> <35A5FC72 DOT C235F6D9 AT eik DOT bme DOT hu><VqrTZAA4qlp1Ew16 AT foobar DOT co DOT uk> <TLOCBFAvt0p1EwGO AT foobar DOT co DOT uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol-alt1.unb.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
In-Reply-To: <TLOCBFAvt0p1EwGO@foobar.co.uk>
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, 11 Jul 1998, Paul Shirley wrote:
->>>I think these differ in how they uses the CARRY bit
->
->(Having realised << is a left shift;)
->The reason you see SAL or SHL is that they are the same instruction,
->given 2 names at the whim of some Intel engineer, used at the whim of
->the compiler writers.
->The carry (if that were the difference) would be irrelevant since C
->source cannot see a carry, compiler writers can do what they like with
->it.
	Wouldn't that mean that if you had a negative number shifted left
a bunch of times you could end up with a positive?

	Endlisnis
[I have a pyramid of wingyness]