[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: int vs. long in test(1)
> intmax_t, being the largest signed integer type supported by the
(This has always bothered me; why does there have to be a maximum?)
> is guaranteed to be at least as large as "signed long", and may be
> larger. Where do you see a spec that requires "signed long" and
> forbids anything larger than that?
My guess would be this is a misremembereing of what jmc@ said upthread:
> 1003.1 claims all sh arithmetic requires "signed long" (as defined in
> C) as a minimum.
I remembered this as saying that sh arithmetic had to be done using
signed longs, until I went and checked. Perhaps others have made the
same mistake of memory?
/~\ The ASCII der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse%rodents-montreal.org@localhost
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
Main Index |
Thread Index |