This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the GDB project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: [RFA] fix gdb.base/remote.c for small int targets

> Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 08:29:02 -0700
> From: Kevin Buettner <kevinb@cygnus.com>
> 
> > > +#if INT_MAX < 32768
> > 
> > Shouldn't you use 32768L or 32768U?  If an int is only 16 bits wide,
> > 32768 might overflow into the sign bit, and then all bets are off.
> 
> Although not incorrect, using 32768L or 32768U is not necessary. 
> According to section 7.11.1 of Harbison and Steele:

What version of the C standard is this from?  If that's C99, I don't
think we can assume all compilers comply with it.

Anyway, I know at least one compiler which would print a warning about
large constants being converted to unsigned.  I think it's best to
avoid warnings, even if they are not mandated by the standard.
Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]