https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92659
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92659
--- Comment #10 from Jonny Grant ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #8)
> Because 5147483647 doesn't fit in an int, so it picks a larger type, because
> that's what the standard requires. 1 does fit in an int, so the compiler
> picks i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92659
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to David Brown from comment #6)
> All in all, the whole idea sounds counter-productive to me. If you need
> spoon-feeding about the details of C here, you would be better off reading a
> book on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92659
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Because 5147483647 doesn't fit in an int, so it picks a larger type, because
that's what the standard requires. 1 does fit in an int, so the compiler picks
int, because that's what the standard requires.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92659
--- Comment #7 from Jonny Grant ---
(In reply to David Brown from comment #4)
> (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"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92659
--- Comment #6 from David Brown ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #3)
> (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" i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92659
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #3)
> 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.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92659
David Brown changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||david at westcontrol dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92659
--- Comment #3 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(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
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92659
--- Comment #2 from Jonny Grant ---
(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'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92659
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at mengyan1223 dot wang
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92659
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Severity|normal
12 matches
Mail list logo
