From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1MjcbZ-00081U-Vp
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 04 Sep 2009 13:29:46 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1MjcbV-00081F-CX
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 04 Sep 2009 13:29:45 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=39263 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MjcbV-00081C-Ad
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 04 Sep 2009 13:29:41 -0400
Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:52810)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <Reimar.Doeffinger@gmx.de>) id 1MjcbU-0008Kp-Nf
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 04 Sep 2009 13:29:41 -0400
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 19:29:35 +0200
From: Reimar =?iso-8859-1?Q?D=F6ffinger?= <Reimar.Doeffinger@gmx.de>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2] Fix compilation of check-qint.c by
	using a long long integer constant
Message-ID: <20090904172935.GA4163@1und1.de>
References: <1252084198-15375-1-git-send-email-Pierre.Riteau@irisa.fr>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1252084198-15375-1-git-send-email-Pierre.Riteau@irisa.fr>
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Pierre Riteau <Pierre.Riteau@irisa.fr>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 07:09:58PM +0200, Pierre Riteau wrote:
> Error was:
> check-qint.c:46: error: integer constant is too large for 'long' type
> ---
>  check-qint.c |    2 +-
>  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/check-qint.c b/check-qint.c
> index ae5d22f..f5c054e 100644
> --- a/check-qint.c
> +++ b/check-qint.c
> @@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ END_TEST
>  START_TEST(qint_from_int64_test)
>  {
>      QInt *qi;
> -    const int64_t value = 0xffffffffffffffff;
> +    const int64_t value = 0xffffffffffffffffLL;

Hm, well it does not really fit in a signed long long either (so from that
aspect it should be ULL).
Should it not be simply -1 (does qemu assume all architectures
use two's complement?)?