Re: 0xdeadbeef vs 0xdeadbeefL

[Jan-Benedict Glaw <jbglaw@lug-owl.de>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1057 bytes --]

On Wed, 2004-07-07 09:30:59 +0200, Tomas Szepe <szepe@pinerecords.com>
wrote in message <20040707073059.GA20079@louise.pinerecords.com>:
> On Jul-06 2004, Tue, 19:05 -0700
> Ray Lee <ray-lk@madrabbit.org> wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> Is it safe to assume that C99 compilers append "..., long long int,
> unsigned long long int" to the list?

It is.

MfG, JBG

-- 
   Jan-Benedict Glaw       jbglaw@lug-owl.de    . +49-172-7608481
   "Eine Freie Meinung in  einem Freien Kopf    | Gegen Zensur | Gegen Krieg
    fuer einen Freien Staat voll Freier Bürger" | im Internet! |   im Irak!
   ret = do_actions((curr | FREE_SPEECH) & ~(NEW_COPYRIGHT_LAW | DRM | TCPA));

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]