Subject: fuller thicker hair - A Top Celebrity Dr

From: Regrow Fuller Hair <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2014 11:26:52 -0700

TJ Maxx Cares

That's why Your are receiving $25!

Filling Out this Survey lets You Redeem Your Gift-Card.

Here's How You Do It: 
----------------------

1) Redeem Your Gift-Card Here -> http://www.wigae.com/discovery/hair/regrowth/approved.html
2) Fill Out Your Survey
3) Enjoy Your Rewards Today

- Summer Rewards Program

-
-
-
To stop further notifications - Write Daily Updated Alerts- 9306 Bova CT- Louiseville, KY 40291 or visit 
http://www.wigae.com/werti/srjgi.srgjie
-
-
-
 as arrays. I've added an answer of my own which includes an implementation of bit-test taking into account what I just It's just me, but I'd prefer to parenthesize the bit shift expressions (similar to what @Aaron has done above).  the bit-fiddling here will silently fail if number is wider than int why don't you change the last one to bit = (number >> x) & 1  x86 has native bit test and set/clear/complement instructions too I think there is a problem in the notation. Say I have 0011 (decimal 3) and I want to check if second bit is set, e.g., the one in bold: 0 0 1 1. How do you refer to x? Will it be 2nd or 1st bit according to your notation, because if it is 2nd bit, I think you suggestion won't work, e.g., since you will shift 1 two 1 is an int literal, which is signed. So all the operations here operate on signed numbers, which is not well defined by the standards. The standards does not guarantee two's complement or arithmetic shift so it is better This is the best guide I've s
 een, but for some reason I had to remove the '1 <<' from all the entries to make them work.  It's because you weren't working with the bit ordinal, but a bitmask.  (1 << x) is a bitmask with exactly one bit set, the xth bit.To clarify anatolyg's comment, the constant "1" with no modifiers is defined to be a signed int. To have this work properly for all variables, use "1ULL" instead.  Besides specific performance killers like STL and templates, many embedded systems even avoid the whole standard libraries entirely, because they are such a pain to verify. Most of the embedded branch is embracing standards like MISRA, that requires static code analysis tools (any software professionals should be using such tools btw, not just embedded folks). Generally people have better things to do than run static analysis through the whole standard library - if its source code is even available to them on the specific compiler.