Re: spurious C warnings..

[Digby Tarvin <digbyt@acm.org>]

Thanks - that would appear to be exactly the link I needed...

The ULL suffix does indeed seem to have the desired effect, however I
was under the impression that
	((long)0xFFFFFFFF)
was supposed to be a more syntactically consistent and equivalent form of 
	(0xFFFFFFFFL)

in which case ((long long)0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF), which I tried,
should have worked... 

This suggests the former just promotes the default type, and a
suffix is the only way to really control the type of a literal.

It also seems inconsitent that no warning is generated for
	long l = 0xffffffff;
given that the literal should be defaulting to int, which on
some architectures is 16 bits so the construct is just as
questionable from a portability standpoint..

Anyway, thanks for the pointer (no pun intended...)..

Regards,
DigbyT

On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 04:36:56PM +0000, Magnus Therning wrote:
> 
> See http://sources.redhat.com/ml/crossgcc/2004-02/msg00036.html
> 
> /M
> 
> -- 
> Magnus Therning                    (OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4)
> magnus@therning.org
> http://therning.org/magnus
-- 
Digby R. S. Tarvin                                          digbyt(at)digbyt.com
http://www.digbyt.com