From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Dec 22 12:26:14 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BC9016A4CE
	for <stable@freebsd.org>; Wed, 22 Dec 2004 12:26:14 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from mail.ticketswitch.com (mail.ticketswitch.com [194.200.93.188])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16D8F43D53
	for <stable@freebsd.org>; Wed, 22 Dec 2004 12:26:14 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from petefrench@ticketswitch.com)
Received: from [172.16.1.6] (helo=dilbert.firstcallgroup.co.uk)
	by mail.ticketswitch.com with esmtp (Exim 4.32; FreeBSD)
	id 1Ch5Z6-0000nW-0s; Wed, 22 Dec 2004 12:26:04 +0000
Received: from petefrench by dilbert.firstcallgroup.co.uk with local (Exim
	4.42 (FreeBSD))	id 1Ch5Z5-000FuI-TV; Wed, 22 Dec 2004 12:26:03 +0000
To: ertr1013@student.uu.se, petefrench@ticketswitch.com
In-Reply-To: <20041221192924.GA27658@falcon.midgard.homeip.net>
Message-Id: <E1Ch5Z5-000FuI-TV@dilbert.firstcallgroup.co.uk>
From: Pete French <petefrench@ticketswitch.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 12:26:03 +0000
cc: brett@lariat.org
cc: stable@freebsd.org
cc: colin.percival@wadham.ox.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Will there be a 5.3.1?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code
	<freebsd-stable.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>,
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>,
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 12:26:14 -0000

> Buggy compilers are indefensible, yes, but why try to apologise for it?

I dont see it as a bug. Without an 'L' the right hand side of that
expression is a 16 bit int. For which 65536 is out of range. If I
wrote 'int y = 65535; long x = y;' then I would get the same result for
the same reason.

The correct line is 'long x = 65535L;' which specifies that the constant
is a long. In fact aren't situations like this the precise reason for
having the 'L' as part of the language ?

> 'long x = 65535;' will not set x to -1, even with 16-bit ints.

It will and does on certain compilers unfortunately.

-pcf.