From: Gabriel Paubert <paubert@iram.es>
To: tom st denis <tomstdenis@yahoo.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 0xdeadbeef vs 0xdeadbeefL
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 18:30:49 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040707163048.GA30840@iram.es> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040707111028.82649.qmail@web41111.mail.yahoo.com>
On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 04:10:28AM -0700, tom st denis wrote:
> --- viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 05:06:12PM -0700, tom st denis wrote:
> > > --- David Eger <eger@havoc.gtf.org> wrote:
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > Normally this isn't a problem since int == long on most platforms
> > that
> > > run Linux. However, by the standard 0xdeadbeef is not a valid
> > unsigned
> > > long constant.
> >
> > ... and that would be your F for C101. Suggested remedial reading
> > before
> > you take the test again: any textbook on C, section describing
> > integer
> > constants; alternatively, you can look it up in any revision of C
> > standard.
> > Pay attention to difference in the set of acceptable types for
> > decimal
> > and heaxdecimal constants.
>
> You're f'ing kidding me right? Dude, I write portable ISO C source
> code for a living. My code has been built on dozens and dozens of
> platforms **WITHOUT** changes. I know what I'm talking about.
>
> 0x01, 1 are 01 all **int** constants.
>
> On some platforms 0xdeadbeef may be a valid int, in most cases the
> compiler won't diagnostic it. splint thought it was worth mentioning
> which is why I replied.
>
> In fact GCC has odd behaviour. It will diagnostic
>
> char x = 0xFF;
>
> and
>
> int x = 0xFFFFFFFFULL;
>
> But not
>
> int x = 0xFFFFFFFF;
>
> [with --std=c99 -pedantic -O2 -Wall -W]
>
> So I'd say it thinks that all of the constants are "int". In this case
> 0xFF is greater than 127 [max for char] and 0xFFFFFFFFFFULL is larger
You are aware that this statement is plainly and simply wrong,
aren't you?
On many platforms a "plain" char is unsigned. You can't write portable
code without knowing this.
>
> Before you step down to belittle others I'd suggest you actually make
> sure you're right.
Ditto.
Gabriel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-07-07 16:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-07-06 21:56 0xdeadbeef vs 0xdeadbeefL David Eger
2004-07-07 0:06 ` tom st denis
2004-07-07 3:00 ` viro
2004-07-07 11:10 ` tom st denis
2004-07-07 11:18 ` Prohibited attachment type (was 0xdeadbeef) Richard B. Johnson
2004-07-07 11:48 ` tom st denis
2004-07-07 12:29 ` Jakub Jelinek
2004-07-08 5:52 ` Pavel Machek
2004-07-08 14:03 ` Jakub Jelinek
2004-07-07 12:13 ` R. J. Wysocki
2004-07-07 14:22 ` 0xdeadbeef vs 0xdeadbeefL viro
2004-07-07 18:47 ` tom st denis
2004-07-07 16:30 ` Gabriel Paubert [this message]
2004-07-07 18:41 ` tom st denis
2004-07-07 18:47 ` Christoph Hellwig
2004-07-07 18:53 ` tom st denis
2004-07-07 23:17 ` Harald Arnesen
2004-07-08 6:15 ` David Weinehall
2004-07-08 9:32 ` [OT] " Gabriel Paubert
2004-07-08 11:15 ` viro
2004-07-08 11:55 ` Gabriel Paubert
2004-07-08 16:41 ` Andries Brouwer
2004-07-08 17:13 ` Michael Driscoll
2004-07-08 17:16 ` Horst von Brand
2004-07-10 1:52 ` Andrew Rodland
2004-07-07 0:38 ` Richard B. Johnson
2004-07-07 4:52 ` David Eger
2004-07-07 11:40 ` Richard B. Johnson
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2004-07-07 2:05 Ray Lee
2004-07-07 3:02 ` viro
2004-07-07 5:58 ` Alexandre Oliva
2004-07-07 6:12 ` Ray Lee
2004-07-07 5:55 ` Alexandre Oliva
2004-07-07 6:08 ` Ray Lee
2004-07-07 6:48 ` viro
2004-07-07 17:58 ` Alexandre Oliva
2004-07-12 17:31 ` H. Peter Anvin
2004-07-07 7:30 ` Tomas Szepe
2004-07-07 14:34 ` Jan-Benedict Glaw
2004-07-12 17:50 ` H. Peter Anvin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20040707163048.GA30840@iram.es \
--to=paubert@iram.es \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tomstdenis@yahoo.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.