From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu May  1 14:34:24 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E329C37B401
	for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Thu,  1 May 2003 14:34:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from falcon.midgard.homeip.net (h76n3fls20o913.telia.com
	[213.67.148.76])	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6FC5843FB1
	for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Thu,  1 May 2003 14:34:22 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ertr1013@student.uu.se)
Received: (qmail 51819 invoked by uid 1001); 1 May 2003 21:34:19 -0000
Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 23:34:18 +0200
From: Erik Trulsson <ertr1013@student.uu.se>
To: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org>
Message-ID: <20030501213418.GA42794@falcon.midgard.homeip.net>
Mail-Followup-To: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org>,
	"Jacques A. Vidrine" <nectar@FreeBSD.org>, hackers@freebsd.org
References: <xzp7k9a67pf.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no>
	<20030501150713.GA34992@madman.celabo.org> <20030501152022.GC568@wombat.fafoe>
	<xzpr87ipefn.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <xzpr87ipefn.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i
cc: "Jacques A. Vidrine" <nectar@FreeBSD.org>
cc: hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: incorrect enum warning?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD
	<freebsd-hackers.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 21:34:25 -0000

On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 11:03:40PM +0200, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
> Stefan Farfeleder <stefan@fafoe.dyndns.org> writes:
> > Because 0x80000000 > INT_MAX on 32-Bit architectures, 0x80000000 has
> > type unsigned.  But enumeration constants always have type int, that's
> > why you're getting this warning.
> 
> but 0x80000000 == INT_MIN on 32-bit two's complement systems...

No. 0x80000000 has type unsigned int (assuming 32-bit int) and is thus
a large positive number.  INT_MIN has type signed int and is a negative
number.  The fact that they happen to have the same representation does
not mean they are the same thing.


-- 
<Insert your favourite quote here.>
Erik Trulsson
ertr1013@student.uu.se