Re: 0xdeadbeef vs 0xdeadbeefL

[Ray Lee <ray-lk@madrabbit.org>]

tom st denis quoted David Eger saying:

>> Is there a reason to add the 'L' to such a 32-bit constant like
>> this? There doesn't seem a great rhyme to it in the headers...
> 
> IIRC it should have the L [probably UL instead] since numerical 
> constants are of type ``int'' by default. 
> [...]
> However, by the standard 0xdeadbeef is not a valid unsigned 
> long constant.

I think you have a different standard than I do [1]. According to K&R,
2nd ed, section A2.5.1 (Integer Constants):

        The type of an integer depends on its form, value and suffix.
        [...] If it is unsuffixed octal or hexadecimal, it has the first
        possible of these types ["in which its value can be represented"
        -- from omitted]: int, unsigned int, long int, unsigned long
        int.

Which means 0xdeadbeef is a perfectly valid literal for an unsigned int.

Ray

	[1] "The great thing about standards is that there are so many
	     of them to choose from."  Wish I could remember who said
	     that.