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
From:	"Mija Gourlay" <mijagourlay AT earthlink DOT net>
To:	<cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject:	INT64_MAX incorrectly defined in stdint.h
Date:	Mon, 19 Jan 2004 11:59:29 -0500
Message-ID:	<KJEFJCILBEFAAHCEANDFKEAICAAA.mijagourlay@earthlink.net>
MIME-Version:	1.0

I noticed that the release notes for today's new release claims the following:

	- Correctly define *64_MAX.  (Corinna Vinschen)

I have the latest version, as far as I know, since I ran "update" today.
First, I noticed no change to stdint.h.  Second, I noticed that INT64_MAX is
still incorrectly defined:

	stdint.h:79:#define INT64_MAX (9223372036854775807)

This literal should have a "LL" suffix.  Otherwise, compiling the following
code generates an error:

	int64_t i64Max = INT64_MAX ;

	warning: integer constant is too large for "long" type

So... I'm confused.  Has stdint.h been updated?  If so, why didn't I get it
today when I updated Cygwin?  If not, where, exactly, did the *64_MAX macros
get "correctly defined", as the release notes indicate?

Thanks.

______________________
Dr. Michael J. Gourlay


--
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 -