Re: xstrtoimax compilation warning on Solaris 7

[Eric Blake]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

According to Larry Jones on 11/8/2005 9:51 PM:
> 
> Go read the C standard: unsuffixed values which are too large to fit in
> an int have type long (or long long, if necessary).  GCC warns about
> that since it may not have been intended, but Paul is right: because of
> their magnitudes, the values *do* have the correct types, despite the
> lack of suffixes.

But C89 does not have long long - what does the standard say about
literals that exceed long?  I'll admit I am not as familiar with the full
C99 standard.  I also come from a Java background, where omitting the L
suffix on a 64-bit literal is a hard error rather than a silent change in
type from int to long.

- --
Life is short - so eat dessert first!

Eric Blake             address@hidden
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Cygwin)
Comment: Public key at home.comcast.net/~ericblake/eblake.gpg
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDcYGR84KuGfSFAYARAs9HAKCOrS2vs2KOQOUXr8+MLvysJltM8ACgoHLR
xm0lT/VRY0P1OdTJgGNd+Ds=
=gFWb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----