Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 09:01:20 +0100 From: Dimitry Andric <dim@FreeBSD.org> To: Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@acm.org> Cc: svn-src-head@FreeBSD.org, svn-src-all@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, David Chisnall <theraven@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r227474 - head/sys/amd64/include Message-ID: <4EC0CAD0.1070100@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20111114053116.GA91295@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> References: <201111122016.pACKG7sr059722@svn.freebsd.org> <20111114053116.GA91295@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2011-11-14 06:31, Peter Jeremy wrote: > On 2011-Nov-12 20:16:07 +0000, David Chisnall <theraven@FreeBSD.org> wrote: ... >> +#define SIG_ATOMIC_MIN LONG_MIN >> +#define SIG_ATOMIC_MAX LONG_MAX > > 2) As far as I can see, all other defines in _stdint.h, across all > architectures, have explicit lengths, so I believe this would be > better specified as: > > #define SIG_ATOMIC_MIN INT64_MIN > #define SIG_ATOMIC_MAX INT64_MAX Why? On amd64, sig_atomic_t is defined as long, so LONG_MIN and LONG_MAX are more logical. In fact, for all architectures, sig_atomic_t is either int or long, so INTnn_MIN/MAX is rather strangely chosen.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4EC0CAD0.1070100>