Phillip Susi [2011-01-15 5:40 -0000]: > It looks to me like what it is doing is promoting the 255 to a signed > short, which sign extends to 0xFFFF
That sounds wrong, though. 0xFFFF is not 255 in any kind of data type.
Phillip Susi [2011-01-15 5:40 -0000]:
> It looks to me like what it is doing is promoting the 255 to a signed
> short, which sign extends to 0xFFFF
That sounds wrong, though. 0xFFFF is not 255 in any kind of data type.