binary - Why not enforce 2's complement in C++?

Question

The new C++ standard still refuses to specify the binary representation of integer types. Is this because there are real-world implementations of C++ that don't use 2's complement arithmetic? I find that hard to believe. Is it because the committee feared that future advances in hardware would render the notion of 'bit' obsolete? Again hard to believe. Can anyone shed any light on this?

Background: I was surprised twice in one comment thread (Benjamin Lindley's answer to this question). First, from piotr's comment:

Right shift on signed type is undefined behaviour

Second, from James Kanze's comment:

when assigning to a long, if the value doesn't fit in a long, the results are implementation defined

I had to look these up in the standard before I believed them. The only reason for them is to accommodate non-2's-complement integer representations. WHY?

Answer 1

(Edit: C++20 now imposes 2's complement representation, note that overflow of signed arithmetic is still undefined and shifts continue to have undefined and implementation defined behaviors in some cases.)

• A major problem in defining something which isn't, is that compilers were built assuming that is undefined. Changing the standard won't change the compilers and reviewing those to find out where the assumption was made is a difficult task.

• Even on 2 complement machine, you may have more variety than you think. Two examples: some don't have a sign preserving right shift, just a right shift which introduce zeros; a common feature in DSP is saturating arithmetic, there assigning an out of range value will clip it at the maximum, not just drop the high order bits.