On Sat, Feb 04, 2012 at 11:41:38AM -0800, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Joerg Sonnenberger > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 04, 2012 at 11:53:28AM -0500, Howard Hinnant wrote: > >> But I note the crux of this issue appears to be that this: > >> > >> static const intmax_t nan = (1LL << (sizeof(intmax_t) * CHAR_BIT - 1)); > >> > >> is no longer consider a compile time constant expression. > > > > Ignoring the question of whether clang should allow that or not, why > > aren't you using the more compact statement below, which is just as > > portable: > > > > static const intmax_t -~(intmax_t)0; > > -~0 is 1, not INT_MIN.
Bah right. But what about using INT_MIN etc? It's not like it doesn't already depend on CHAR_BIT to be present. Joerg _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
