unsigned long long

[Tom St Denis]

In <z4dsb.2350$iD1.1236@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> "Tom St

An excellent illustration of the point I've made in another thread.

Tom von Tom has ways of making you talk!

Tom

 

[Jonathan2s6]

Get your Server or Homepage now

Choose which one you prefer.
Redhat, Debian, FreeBSD, Mandrake, Windows, SUSE


http://www.comserver.net

 

[Joona I Palaste]

Get your Server or Homepage now

Choose which one you prefer.
Redhat, Debian, FreeBSD, Mandrake, Windows, SUSE

Get lost.

--
/-- Joona Palaste (palaste@cc.helsinki.fi) ------------- Finland --------\
\-- http://www.helsinki.fi/~palaste --------------------- rules! --------/
"A bee could, in effect, gather its junk. Llamas (no poor quadripeds) tune
and vow excitedly zooming."
- JIPsoft

 

[Joe Wright]

Try it yourself, with the compiler in conforming mode, this time!

Come on Dan, lighten up. As you have noted elsethread, we are not likely
to have C99 conformance. Vanilla gcc compiles this fine. With -ansi
-pedantic it complains about 'long long' of course. I've already
forgotten why I felt compelled to post code here.

 

[Peter Nilsson]

Or, more generally, to the actual type expected by the respective
conversion description.

Unless you're using a conforming C99 implementation, there is no
conversion description that is guarantee to properly handle a size_t
value. Even worse, in the case of sizeof(type) * CHAR_BIT, the type
of the expression can be either size_t or int.

....or unsigned int.

 

[Dan Pop]

Come on Dan, lighten up. As you have noted elsethread, we are not likely
to have C99 conformance. Vanilla gcc compiles this fine.

Vanilla gcc doesn't compile C, and this is NOT a gratuitously pedantic
remark.

With -ansi
-pedantic it complains about 'long long' of course. I've already
forgotten why I felt compelled to post code here.

Even with -std=c99 -pedantic your code fails to compile cleanly, because
of sizeof(void) which is nonsense in C: void is an incomplete type.

Dan

 

[Dan Pop]

...or unsigned int.

ONLY if size_t is an alias of unsigned int (or a shorter unsigned type
with identical properties).

Dan

 

[Peter Nilsson]

ONLY if size_t is an alias of unsigned int (or a shorter unsigned type
with identical properties).

What properties would need to be identical?

 

[Joe Wright]

Try this.
[ code snipped ]

Try it yourself, with the compiler in conforming mode, this time!

Come on Dan, lighten up. As you have noted elsethread, we are not likely
to have C99 conformance. Vanilla gcc compiles this fine.

Vanilla gcc doesn't compile C, and this is NOT a gratuitously pedantic
remark.

With -ansi
-pedantic it complains about 'long long' of course. I've already
forgotten why I felt compelled to post code here.

Even with -std=c99 -pedantic your code fails to compile cleanly, because
of sizeof(void) which is nonsense in C: void is an incomplete type.

You are completely right. I shouldn't ask you to lighten up on me. I
made at least four 'mistakes' in that code and you came down hard on two
of them. Thank you. I need to be more careful in what I write and what I
post.

I promise to be more careful in the future. Please keep trying to catch
me out.

Thanks.

 

[Dan Pop]

What properties would need to be identical?

The range.

Dan