https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92659
--- Comment #3 from Xi Ruoyao <xry111 at mengyan1223 dot wang> --- (In reply to Jonny Grant from comment #2) > (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #1) > > Is it appropriate? > > > > Though on both 32-bit and 64-bit x86 "1ul" is good for a size_t, but I > > believe there is some platform where "1ull" is necessary. > > > > Maybe I'm wrong. But if I'm correct, suggesting "1ul" is encouraging bad > > code. I'll use "(size_t) 1 << 32" for this. > > UL means Unsigned Long, so if that type is also 64bit like size_t, then it > is fine. That is true on *your platform*. I can't find any specification in C standard saying "the bitwidth of long should >= the bitwidth of size_t". So at least theoretically it may be insufficient. Writing unportable thing is OK (if you don't care about other platforms) but *suggesting* unportable thing is bad.
