On Wed, Mar 26, 2025 at 11:39 AM Jani Nikula <jani.nik...@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > That is largely the point, though. You know something fishy is going on > when you have a negative resolution. Nobody blinks an eye when you ask > for 4294963K telly, but it's still just as bonkers as that negative 4K. > > I think the change at hand is fine, but please let's not pretend using > unsigned somehow protects us from negative numbers.
Is there a reasonable maximum that could/should be checked for? (I don't know the context) In other words, if one wants to detect invalid values in a primitive type, one needs to define the valid range anyway. Using the negatives of a signed type is convenient in C, but perhaps there is a tighter threshold? If so, then an extra advantage is that on the Rust side one could also have a proper strong type for this etc. Cheers, Miguel
