On 09/04/2011 11:05 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Sunday, September 04, 2011 22:59:21 Timon Gehr wrote:
static assert(0xF234_5678_9ABC_5A5AUL == 17452669531959614042UL);
auto a = 0xF234_5678_9ABC_5A5AL; // ok, type is ulong
auto b = 17452669531959614042L; // error, signed integer overflow
But p33. in TDPL states:
"To write a hexadecimal integral literal, use the prefix 0x or 0X
followed by a sequence of the letters 0-9, a-f, A-F, or _. [...] All of
these literals can be suffixed similarly to the decimal constants, and
the rules governing their types are identical to those for decimal
literals."
Is this a compiler bug or an error in TDPL?
It sounds like the compiler assumes that a hexadecimal literal is unsigned and
that a decimal literal is signed - which is what I would have expected it to
do. TDPL should probably be changed. But maybe Walter or Andrei has a different
opinion on that.
- Jonathan M Davis
Note that
static assert(is(typeof(0x1234_5678_9ABC_5A5AL)==long));
The signedness of hex literals depends on whether or not the value fits
in the signed type.
