Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!husc6!cmcl2!brl-adm!brl-smoke!gwyn From: gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: NULL, zero, and readable code Message-ID: <6104@brl-smoke.ARPA> Date: Sun, 12-Jul-87 15:48:37 EDT Article-I.D.: brl-smok.6104 Posted: Sun Jul 12 15:48:37 1987 Date-Received: Mon, 13-Jul-87 04:49:32 EDT References: <8170@brl-adm.ARPA> <13222@topaz.rutgers.edu> <6090@brl-smoke.ARPA> <266@swlabs.UUCP> Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB)) Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD. Lines: 10 In article <266@swlabs.UUCP> jack@swlabs.UUCP (Jack Bonn) writes: >I don't know whether ALL machines will leave a -0 result. But I know >that the CDC 6400 (and family) did. I wonder about this. The CDC 1700, a 16-bit 1's complement machine using the same cordwood modules as the larger CDCs (which means the same bit-slice arithmetic modules), definitely did NOT produce -0 in normal arithmetic unless one introduced a -0 as an operand. That's why I was surprised when I first heard people saying that -0 was a problem; I never had any trouble with it in two years of CDC 1700 programming.