Re: 0xdeadbeef vs 0xdeadbeefL

From: Jan-Benedict Glaw
Date: Wed Jul 07 2004 - 09:35:02 EST


On Wed, 2004-07-07 09:30:59 +0200, Tomas Szepe <szepe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote in message <20040707073059.GA20079@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> On Jul-06 2004, Tue, 19:05 -0700
> Ray Lee <ray-lk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > According to K&R, 2nd ed, section A2.5.1 (Integer Constants):
> >
> > The type of an integer depends on its form, value and suffix.
> > [...] If it is unsuffixed octal or hexadecimal, it has the first
> > possible of these types ["in which its value can be represented"
> > -- from omitted]: int, unsigned int, long int, unsigned long
> > int.
>
> Is it safe to assume that C99 compilers append "..., long long int,
> unsigned long long int" to the list?

It is.

MfG, JBG

--
Jan-Benedict Glaw jbglaw@xxxxxxxxxx . +49-172-7608481
"Eine Freie Meinung in einem Freien Kopf | Gegen Zensur | Gegen Krieg
fuer einen Freien Staat voll Freier Bürger" | im Internet! | im Irak!
ret = do_actions((curr | FREE_SPEECH) & ~(NEW_COPYRIGHT_LAW | DRM | TCPA));

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature