Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID:	<027201c3da94$ffe923f0$26480352@fuji>
From:	"John Maddock" <john AT johnmaddock DOT co DOT uk>
To:	<cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject:	INTMAX_C macro buggy?
Date:	Wed, 14 Jan 2004 11:52:49 -0000
MIME-Version:	1.0

Hi,

The current definition for INTMAX_C AND UINT_MAX_C appear to be wrong:

they are defined as:

/* Macros for greatest-width integer constant expressions */

#define INTMAX_C(x) x ## L

#define UINTMAX_C(x) x ## UL

But intmax_t is a long long, so these should really be appending a LL or ULL
suffix.

Regards,

John Maddock.


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -