With my ksh93 Version JM 93t+ 2010-03-05 I get what you expect
$ typeset -i16 HEX=16#ffffffffffffff $ print $HEX 16#ffffffffffffffff ________________________________ > Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 18:43:52 -0800 > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Subject: [ast-users] ksh88 vs 93 behavior re: hex numbers > > All, > > Sorry if this is well-known but I searched through the list archives > and didn't > find anything on point. > > In short, ksh93 is masking off the upper bits of my hex numbers where > ksh88 did not. > My question is, is this by design? A bug? A LOCALE issue? If it's > configurable, how > do I get the old behavior back? > > ksh88 example: > % typeset -i16 HEX=16#ffffffffffffff > % print $HEX > 16#ffffffffffffff > > ksh93 example: > % typeset -i16 HEX=16#ffffffffffffff > % print $HEX > 16#7fffffff <<---- masked to lower 31-bits ... not what I want! > __ > Patrick > > _______________________________________________ ast-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.research.att.com/mailman/listinfo/ast-users _______________________________________________ ast-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.research.att.com/mailman/listinfo/ast-users
