Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 15:44:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Garrett Wollman <wollman@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> To: demelier.david@gmail.com Cc: , current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: mbstowcs(3) may not return -1 Message-ID: <201206211944.q5LJivlo053021@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> In-Reply-To: <4FE340FF.80406@gmail.com> References: <4FE315B6.9020102@gmail.com> <CAE-mSO%2B3MArm6CJEtzuuTA=-Q_zcUGawnWaaPNZzi7PpQT1VnQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In article <4FE340FF.80406@gmail.com>, demelier.david@gmail.com writes: >On 21/06/2012 14:55, Sergey Kandaurov wrote: >> It returns (size_t)(-1). >> I don't know how is it correct, but this conforms to C spec. >Mm, if I understand well, since it is cast to size_t, I think the return >value will be SIZE_MAX - 1 then, right? No. C does not make any such equivalence. "(size_t)-1" is the one correct spelling of this value (modulo redundant additional parentheses), and that's how the standard writes it. -GAWollman
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201206211944.q5LJivlo053021>