https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97884
--- Comment #7 from s.baur...@tu-berlin.de --- I do understand that +2147483648 is not an int. I am aware of how the 2s complement works. It seems to me the reason for INT_MIN being '(-2147483647 - 1)' instead of the mathematically equivalent '-2147483648' is the parser tokenizing the absolute value of the literal split from the sign of the literal. I'm also able to imagine why that eases parsing. But if splitting absolute value and sign - why not treat the absolute value as unsigned? Or maybe do a check 'in the end' (I have no knowledge of the codebase here...) whether one can reduce the size of the literal again? The fact is INT_MIN and '-2147483648' are both integers perfectly representable in 32 bits. I understand why gcc treats the second one differently (and clang does too) - I just think it's not right (or expectable for that matter). And if it's right, gcc should maybe warn about a 32bit literal being expanded to a larger type - not only in format strings. > The type of an integer constant is the first of the corresponding list in > which its value can be represented. These kind of sentences make me think gcc's behaviour is wrong. The number can be represented in 32 bits.
