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
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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/