tech-userlevel archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: int vs. long in test(1)

On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 02:09:37PM -0700, James Chacon wrote:
> On Jun 19, 2008, at 12:22 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 11:56:43AM -0700, James Chacon wrote:
>>> Isn't that wrong then for 64bit machines where int is 32 and the spec 
>>> says
>>> "signed long" is what should be used here?
>> The wording of the standard means that you can support more, but don't
>> have to. It is valid to use multi-precision math for example.
> doesn't say "signed long as defined on a 32bit machine", it just 
> says signed long.
> That implies to me on a given architecture you must support a signed long 
> size here which would mean on LP64 chopping it at max int is incorrect.

Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't intmax_t defined as the largest
integer type a given machine can manipulate?  That has to be at least as
large as long, on any machine.

Quentin Garnier - -
"See the look on my face from staying too long in one place
[...] every time the morning breaks I know I'm closer to falling"
KT Tunstall, Saving My Face, Drastic Fantastic, 2007.

Attachment: pgpUzC1RVkvXy.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index