Subject: DocOz Clip: 15-lbs in 15-days

From: Inspiring Weight Loss <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2014 14:06:31 -0700

Greetings Ipp-archive,

Introducing ... DocOZ Ultimate Fat-Melting Guide

Get the results you want with just 1 step. - W/Out Exercise or Food Deprivation

1) Have a Date you need to lose weight by?

Enter the date here:

September 1st
September 1st
September 7th
September 14th
September 21st
September 28th
October 1st
October 14th
November 1st
November 14th
Other...

and see how much you will lose by then...

2) Select How Much You Would Like To Lose:

10 lbs
10 lbs
15 lbs
20 lbs
25 lbs
30 lbs
35 lbs
40 lbs
45 lbs
50 lbs
Other...

Oz Show Episode

To stop further messages from Daily Updated Alerts

9306 BOVA CT- Louiseville, KY 40291 or visit visit here

2 things about this: (1) in perusing your macros, some may incorrectly believe that the macros actually set/clear/flip bits in the arg, however there is no assignment; (2) your test.c is not complete; I suspect if you ran more cases you'd find a problem (reader exercise) Dan Oct 18 '08 at 1:51

anguage by hiding away language syntax behind macros, it is very bad practice. Then some oddities: first, 1L is signed, meaning all bit operations will be performed on a signed type. Everything passed to these macros will return as signed long. Not good. Second, this will work very inefficiently on smaller CPUs as it enforces long when the operations could have been on int level. Third, function-like macros are the root of all evil: you have no type safety whatsoever. Also, the previous comment about no assignment is very valid.I've always found using bitfields is a bad idea. You have no control over the order in which bits are allocated (from the top or the bottom), which makes it impossible to serialize the value in a stable/portable way except bit-at-a-time. It's also impossible to mix DIY bit arithmetic with bitfields, for example making a mask that tests for several bits at once. You can of course use && Bit fields are bad in so many ways, I could almost write a bo
ok about it. In fact I almost had to do that for a bit field program that needed MISRA-C compliance. MISRA-C enforces all implementation-defined behavior to be documented, so I ended up writing quite an essay about everything that can go wrong in bit fields. Bit order, endianess, padding bits, padding bytes, various other alignment issues, implicit and explicit type conversions to and from a bit field, UB if int isn't used and so on. Instead, use bitwise-operators for less bugs abused. If you need to pack several small values into a single int, bit fields can be very useful. On the other hand, if you start making assumptions about how the bit fields map to the actual containing int, you're just asking for trouble. the bit order is arbitrary and you can't use this to twiddle individual bits in a microcontroller? That would not be a good idea. You could make it work, but it wouldn't necessarily be portable to a different processor, or to a different is awesome. My question though i
s: after checking the sizeof(mybits), I get 12 (i.e. size of three ints). Is this the space allocated in memory or some bug in the sizeof function? - what compiler are you using? I get 4 with both VC++11 and Clang o I am using gcc version 4.4.5 YIt is possible to use both, the struct can be put inside a (usually anonymous) union with an integer etc. It works. (I realize this is an old thread btw) Shade May 17 at 4:59