Re: 0xdeadbeef vs 0xdeadbeefL

From: Alexandre Oliva (aoliva_at_redhat.com)
Date: 07/07/04

  • Next message: Marcelo Tosatti: "Unnecessary barrier in sync_page()?" 
    To: viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk
Date:	07 Jul 2004 14:58:08 -0300

    On Jul 7, 2004, viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk wrote:

    > On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 02:55:01AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
    >> On Jul 6, 2004, Ray Lee <ray-lk@madrabbit.org> wrote:
    >>
    >> > Which means 0xdeadbeef is a perfectly valid literal for an unsigned int.
    >>
    >> Assuming ints are 32-bits wide.

    > ITYM "at least 32-bits wide".

    No, exactly 32-bits wide. If they're wider, it's going to be signed
    int. If they're narrower, it's going to be long or unsigned long,
    depending on how wide long is. 

    -- 
Alexandre Oliva             http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist  oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
  • Next message: Marcelo Tosatti: "Unnecessary barrier in sync_page()?"

    Relevant Pages