Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 7 Jul 2004 16:34:07 +0200 | From | Jan-Benedict Glaw <> | Subject | Re: 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] | |