lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Jul]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 0xdeadbeef vs 0xdeadbeefL
On Wed, 2004-07-07 09:30:59 +0200, Tomas Szepe <szepe@pinerecords.com>
wrote in message <20040707073059.GA20079@louise.pinerecords.com>:
> On Jul-06 2004, Tue, 19:05 -0700
> Ray Lee <ray-lk@madrabbit.org> 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@lug-owl.de . +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));
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:04    [W:0.090 / U:0.592 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site