Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 14:25:14 +0000 From: Pete French <petefrench@ticketswitch.com> To: ertr1013@student.uu.se, petefrench@ticketswitch.com Cc: colin.percival@wadham.ox.ac.uk Subject: Re: Will there be a 5.3.1? Message-ID: <E1Ch7QQ-000GlO-MB@dilbert.firstcallgroup.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <20041222141450.GA51987@falcon.midgard.homeip.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> The type of a decimal integer constant without any suffix is the first > of 'int', 'long', 'long long' in which the constant can be represented. It is ? Well, you learn something new every day I guess! I stand corrected in that case. Appologies. > (For C89 it was the first of 'int', 'long', 'unsigned long') ...and before that ? Did this behaviour change at the end of the 80's - I don't actually recall seeing it on any compilers after 88 or so I have to admit. > No doubt, but if it does the compilers are buggy. Apparently so. It seems I've spent the last 18 years or so believing an untyped integer constant was always of type 'int' when it wasn't true. Well, maybe I will be less anal about adding 'L' to the ends of my constants from now on. -pcf.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?E1Ch7QQ-000GlO-MB>