On 24/11/20 10:55, Markus Armbruster wrote:
+ /* Larger than UINT64_MAX: */
+ QLIT_QNUM_DOUBLE(18446744073709552e3),
+ /* Smaller than INT64_MIN: */
+ QLIT_QNUM_DOUBLE(-92233720368547758e2),
Why "larger than UINT64_MAX" and "smaller than INT64_MIN"?
I guess the point is to test values that are only representable as a
double, so (double)((uint64_t)INT64_MAX+1) wouldn't be very useful for
that: as the expression shows, it would not be a QNUM_VAL_INT but it
would be representable as QNUM_VAL_UINT.
So these are the cases that matter the most, even though -1, 0 and
INT64_MAX+1 could be nice to have.
Paolo
