Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 13:54:25 -0400 From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Maybe not a bug but a possible omission? On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 07:19:49PM +0200, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > * 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. Yes. If a tool is misinterpreting the expressions here, the tool should be fixed. They all have the intended types already when evaluated as C expressions. Making random edits to headers to make buggy tools happy is not a direction I want to take. Rich
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.