-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 According to Larry Jones on 11/8/2005 9:51 PM: > > Go read the C standard: unsuffixed values which are too large to fit in > an int have type long (or long long, if necessary). GCC warns about > that since it may not have been intended, but Paul is right: because of > their magnitudes, the values *do* have the correct types, despite the > lack of suffixes.
But C89 does not have long long - what does the standard say about literals that exceed long? I'll admit I am not as familiar with the full C99 standard. I also come from a Java background, where omitting the L suffix on a 64-bit literal is a hard error rather than a silent change in type from int to long. - -- Life is short - so eat dessert first! Eric Blake [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Cygwin) Comment: Public key at home.comcast.net/~ericblake/eblake.gpg Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDcYGR84KuGfSFAYARAs9HAKCOrS2vs2KOQOUXr8+MLvysJltM8ACgoHLR xm0lT/VRY0P1OdTJgGNd+Ds= =gFWb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ bug-gnulib mailing list bug-gnulib@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnulib
