[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2014 11:38:03 +0100
From: Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@...ia.fr>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Further limits/stdint issues
Am Dienstag, den 02.12.2014, 20:02 -0500 schrieb Rich Felker:
> UINT32_MAX and UINT64_MAX lack the U suffix. This probably does not
> matter for UINT64_MAX since the value does not fit in intmax_t, but
> for UINT32_MAX, it will be treated as a signed value at the
> preprocessor level without the U suffix.
right, so I should add such a signed/unsigned preprocessor test to my
test program. (makes it even more ugly)
> It may be possible to eliminate the #if UINTPTR_MAX == UINT64_MAX
> check for defining INT64_C() etc. using an expression that yields the
> right type naturally (e.g. (c)+0*0x7fffffffffffffff etc.) but I'm not
> sure if that's an improvement.
With the patch I proposed, there is no conditional compilation of that
kind anymore.
Jens
--
:: INRIA Nancy Grand Est ::: AlGorille ::: ICube/ICPS :::
:: ::::::::::::::: office Strasbourg : +33 368854536 ::
:: :::::::::::::::::::::: gsm France : +33 651400183 ::
:: ::::::::::::::: gsm international : +49 15737185122 ::
:: http://icube-icps.unistra.fr/index.php/Jens_Gustedt ::
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (199 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
