From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:43448)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <lersek@redhat.com>) id 1WOWfG-0008UQ-2c
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 14:17:07 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <lersek@redhat.com>) id 1WOWf7-0002zx-4U
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 14:17:02 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:58830)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <lersek@redhat.com>) id 1WOWf6-0002zg-TB
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 14:16:53 -0400
Message-ID: <5323478E.1080008@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 19:16:46 +0100
From: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <3096076082478dafe78553ab5cbd8b572904cbc4.1394794127.git.jcody@redhat.com>
	<20140314153639.GD1985@redhat.com>
	<CAFEAcA9M1W6w0KR5MA1AbA3dACdjd9PYfjQXH2ySiVf1iM3zRg@mail.gmail.com>
	<20140314155742.GU1346@redhat.com> <53232D9E.2010002@redhat.com>
	<20140314165109.GV1346@redhat.com> <53233BEB.2090102@redhat.com>
	<20140314174947.GW1346@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <20140314174947.GW1346@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] block: Explicitly specify 'unsigned long
 long' for VHDX 64-bit constants
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: "Richard W.M. Jones" <rjones@redhat.com>
Cc: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>, Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>, Jeff Cody <jcody@redhat.com>, QEMU Developers <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>, Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>

On 03/14/14 18:49, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 06:27:07PM +0100, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>> *Why* someone would want to use an integer constant with type
>> "uint_least64_t" is a separate matter. One example follows -- assume all
>> of the below:
>> - suppose you write portable C99 source code,
>> - hence you can't take uint64_t for granted,
>> - you want a constant that's otherwise small enough to be represented as
>> "int",
>> - but you want that constant to trigger the "usual arithmetic
>> conversions" (see 6.3.1.8) to evaluate expressions that the constant
>> participates in in at least 64 bits,
>> - you want the narrowest type that allows you to do this.
> 
> - You want the code to self-document its intentions.

I do.

> I don't think ULL does that because it requires people to know that
> ULL is at least 64 bits.

Oh. I see what you mean. This never crossed my mind (= people missing
the fact that unsigned long long can represent at least up to 2^64-1).

Laszlo