Also <= LONG_MIN needed?
I guess yes?
At 03:22 PM 9/11/2004 +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
Joe Orton wrote:
The DVAL_TO_LVAL macro is quite weird, I'm not sure exactly what it's
supposed to be doing but it probably isn't doing it. If the integral
part of d is outside the range of a long, the conversi
On Sat, Sep 11, 2004 at 03:22:27PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> Joe Orton wrote:
> >GCC on IA64 does wierd things with this macro, though I think there's a
> >GCC bug involved there too. This fixes the macro to have well-defined
> >behaviour for all values of 'd', and avoids triggering the GCC b
Joe Orton wrote:
The DVAL_TO_LVAL macro is quite weird, I'm not sure exactly what it's
supposed to be doing but it probably isn't doing it. If the integral
part of d is outside the range of a long, the conversion has undefined
behaviour by the C99 standard; an explicit cast makes no difference
AFAI
Joe Orton wrote:
The DVAL_TO_LVAL macro is quite weird, I'm not sure exactly what it's
supposed to be doing but it probably isn't doing it. If the integral
part of d is outside the range of a long, the conversion has undefined
behaviour by the C99 standard; an explicit cast makes no difference
AFAI
