[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
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
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
