Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 19:19:49 +0200 From: Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@...t70.net> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Maybe not a bug but a possible omission? * Jon Scobie <jon.scobie@...lsign.com> [2018-03-28 14:33:23 +0100]: > Well, I definitely agree that instead of definitions like > > #define INT64_MIN (-1-0x7fffffffffffffff) > > we should have > > #define INT64_MIN (-1 - INT64_C(0x7fffffffffffffff)) > why? "The macro INTN_C(value) shall expand to an integer constant expression corresponding to the type int_leastN_t" i dont think it is necessary or appropriate: the c rules already handles this portably: the const has the lowest rank 64bit signed int type, any additional complication can just get the type wrong.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux - Powered by OpenVZ