Am Saturday 04 December 2010 schrieb Thiago Macieira:
> 0u is ISO C standard.
Thanks, just worried because of the "cumbesome" C cast.
> Also, a literal integer is automatically converted to the right type if the
> size fits. So 0 is a valid unsigned integer, but 128 isn't a valid uchar.
Yes, but n
On Saturday, 4 de December de 2010 12:00:55 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On Saturday, 4 de December de 2010 01:29:13 Thomas Lübking wrote:
> > Am Saturday 04 December 2010 schrieb Michael Pyne:
> > > Hmm, this is what I'd call an "answer by accident" at work. (unsigned)0
> > > is
> >
> > Sorry for hoo
On Saturday, 4 de December de 2010 01:29:13 Thomas Lübking wrote:
> Am Saturday 04 December 2010 schrieb Michael Pyne:
> > Hmm, this is what I'd call an "answer by accident" at work. (unsigned)0
> > is
>
> Sorry for hooking in with a semi-OT sidequestion:
>
> Is "0u" gcc specific then?
No.
Am Saturday 04 December 2010 schrieb Michael Pyne:
> Hmm, this is what I'd call an "answer by accident" at work. (unsigned)0 is
Sorry for hooking in with a semi-OT sidequestion:
Is "0u" gcc specific then?
Thomas
On Friday, December 03, 2010 00:07:06 Vishal Rao wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Sorry if this is spam/silly.
>
> I happened to notice this while browsing the 4.5.4 release announcement
> pages:
>
> unsigned KSharedDataCache::totalSize() const
>
> has added:
>
> if (lock.failed()) {
> return false;
> }
Hello,
Sorry if this is spam/silly.
I happened to notice this while browsing the 4.5.4 release announcement pages:
unsigned KSharedDataCache::totalSize() const
has added:
if (lock.failed()) {
return false;
}
Returning bool false for return type unsigned - is this a potential
problem or do y
