begin Jeff Newmiller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Tue, 15 Oct 2002, Peter Jay Salzman wrote: > > > hi sam, > > > > i wasn't really worrying about fitting numbers into correct datatypes as > > much as i was the warning that my "unsigned int" was getting truncated > > to an unsigned int. > > > > seems like an odd thing for gcc to say. > > It isn't complaining about moving the data from the constant to the > variable. It is complaining about your attempt to describe 99999999999 as > an unsigned integer by sticking a "u" after it. Within the definition > supported by gcc, it doesn't qualify. Thus, the four bytes stuffed into > the code image to be copied into the stack upon execution would not > represent the number your source code contained, even though no conversion > is taking place at runtime. aha. ok. makes sense. thanks!
pete _______________________________________________ vox-tech mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
