Digby Tarvin wrote:
Mike McCarty wrote:
Is the standard available online somewhere?
Yes and no. It may be *purchased* online. There are also
draft copies online which are free, but are not *exactly*
what was adopted as the final draft. Look for N9724.pdf and
N9724.txt with Google, or I can sho
Digby Tarvin wrote:
Is the standard available online somewhere?
Yes and no. It may be *purchased* online. There are also
draft copies online which are free, but are not *exactly*
what was adopted as the final draft. Look for N9724.pdf and
N9724.txt with Google, or I can shoot you an e-mail with
Hi Mike,
Nice explanation - thanks!.
I originally learned C on PDP11's using K&R, and later on a
6809 home system - so I still tend to avoid making assumptions
about the size of an int...
Anyway, your explanation makes sense.
Is the standard available online somewhere?
Regards,
DigbyT
On Wed,
> >I originally learned C on PDP11's using K&R, and later on a
> >6809 home system - so I still tend to avoid making assumptions
> >about the size of an int...
>
> Good policy. But "back in the day" there wasn't much difference
> made between an unsigned int and a char *. I've used a couple of
> m
Digby Tarvin wrote:
Hi Mike,
Nice explanation - thanks!.
I originally learned C on PDP11's using K&R, and later on a
6809 home system - so I still tend to avoid making assumptions
about the size of an int...
Good policy. But "back in the day" there wasn't much difference
made between an unsig
Digby Tarvin wrote:
Thanks - that would appear to be exactly the link I needed...
The ULL suffix does indeed seem to have the desired effect, however I
was under the impression that
((long)0x)
was supposed to be a more syntactically consistent and equivalent form of
(0x
Thanks - that would appear to be exactly the link I needed...
The ULL suffix does indeed seem to have the desired effect, however I
was under the impression that
((long)0x)
was supposed to be a more syntactically consistent and equivalent form of
(0xL)
in which ca
On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 03:28:08PM +, Digby Tarvin wrote:
>The is probably not specific to Debian, but the system I encountered it
>on is Debian 3.1 (Sarge/Stable) and perhaps someone here can explain
>it...
>
>If I compile the program:
> main()
> {
> long long foo = 0
The is probably not specific to Debian, but the system I encountered it
on is Debian 3.1 (Sarge/Stable) and perhaps someone here can explain
it...
If I compile the program:
main()
{
long long foo = 0;
printf("siz
9 matches
Mail list logo
