From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu May  1 18:18:08 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 1DFC137B401; Thu,  1 May 2003 18:18:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from harmony.village.org (rover.bsdimp.com [204.144.255.66])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 610EB43FA3; Thu,  1 May 2003 18:18:07 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com)
Received: from localhost (warner@rover2.village.org [10.0.0.1])
	by harmony.village.org (8.12.8/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h421I6A7012693;
	Thu, 1 May 2003 19:18:06 -0600 (MDT)
	(envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com)
Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 19:17:50 -0600 (MDT)
Message-Id: <20030501.191750.12268648.imp@bsdimp.com>
To: nectar@freebsd.org
From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com>
In-Reply-To: <20030501150713.GA34992@madman.celabo.org>
References: <xzp7k9a67pf.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no>
	<20030501150713.GA34992@madman.celabo.org>
X-Mailer: Mew version 2.1 on Emacs 21.2 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
cc: hackers@freebsd.org
cc: des@ofug.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: Fri, 02 May 2003 01:18:08 -0000

In message: <20030501150713.GA34992@madman.celabo.org>
            "Jacques A. Vidrine" <nectar@freebsd.org> writes:
: > when 0x80000000 is clearly within the range of 'int' on all platforms
: > we support?
: 
: Guessing:
: C does not specify one's complement or two's complement representation
: of integers.  On a one's complement 32-bit platform, 0x80000000 is -0
: (negative zero), which cannot be an `int'.

No.

The reason is that 0x800000000 is a positive number that's bigger than
MAX_INT (which is 0x7fffffff).  It isn't bigger than an unsigned int,
but it is larger than an int, but the standard doesn't say 'unsigned
int' it says 'int' which implies signed.

Warner