Re: int vs. long in test(1)

[der Mouse <mouse%Rodents-Montreal.ORG@localhost>]

> intmax_t, being the largest signed integer type supported by the
> compiler,

(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