https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92659
David Brown <david at westcontrol dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |david at westcontrol dot com
--- Comment #4 from David Brown <david at westcontrol dot com> ---
(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.
>
>
> I would rather use the real type, if the compiler is too stupid to start
> with a type big enough... the same code with 5147483647 works fine, because
> the compiler starts with the number as a 'long int' which is already 64bit,
> no suffix required.
>
I recommend you learn the details of how C works before declaring the compiler
"stupid". This sort of thing is not up to the compiler. When you write "1 <<
32", the "1" is of type "int". The compiler is not allowed to choose a
different type - the best it can do is give you a warning. And the compiler
already /does/ give a warning - a perfectly good warning. It is not the
compiler's job to teach you how to program in C.
