IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Hmm...while the datatype will be first reached,
IIRC, C standard does not state the size of the number, merely that shorts will be a minimum of a certain size, longs will be a minimum of a certain size, etc.

So you're short may handle sizes past 32,768.
New True, but...
...that's not the issue here. The table indicates the progression starts at int, through long, then through long long. So we know that the value is "at least" an int. Since the target machine is a 32-bit machine, we know that the value is treated in some form of 32-bit value.
jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT

     What is with gcc, anyway?!? - (jb4) - (52)
         What is typeof(0x80000000)? - (ChrisR) - (7)
             right, add an L -NT - (deSitter) - (6)
                 Ain't that a UL - (ChrisR) - (5)
                     This is why C is sometimes called "high-level assembler." - (static) - (1)
                         Re: This is why C is sometimes called "high-level assembler. - (jb4)
                     Actually, that would be a U (or u) - (jb4) - (2)
                         What about casting the values? - (ChrisR) - (1)
                             Yes, that was the solution I used - (jb4)
         Re: What is with gcc, anyway?!? - (lordbeatnik) - (3)
             I guess... - (jb4) - (2)
                 If there was no ambiguity... - (lordbeatnik) - (1)
                     For the next set of standards? - (jb4)
         Hex constants are assumed to be positive - (Arkadiy) - (36)
             Re: Hex constants are assumed to be positive - (jb4) - (35)
                 Setting the high bit is processor dependent. - (hnick) - (34)
                     OK, then the standard should be saying - (Arkadiy) - (33)
                         No I actually write code based on them - (jb4) - (30)
                             Ignore them and use my common sence -NT - (Arkadiy) - (29)
                                 I'll bet debugging your code is a real joy... - (jb4) - (28)
                                     Nope - (Arkadiy) - (27)
                                         And so tell me, O Oracle of Common Sence [sic] - (jb4) - (26)
                                             offensive foul, ball to Ark - (deSitter) - (3)
                                                 Rest assured, - (Arkadiy) - (1)
                                                     :) ok -NT - (deSitter)
                                                 OK, OK... - (jb4)
                                             Well, while the tone is disagreable, the question is - (Arkadiy) - (21)
                                                 Point missed. - (jb4) - (20)
                                                     If C were sane, TRUE = -1 and problem vanishes -NT - (deSitter) - (7)
                                                         Ermm...say What? - (jb4) - (2)
                                                             Re: Ermm...say What? - (deSitter) - (1)
                                                                 Much like Jewish law - (Arkadiy)
                                                         So you prefer how VB does it?? -NT - (ben_tilly) - (3)
                                                             Point: Ben... -NT - (jb4)
                                                             How it used to do it. - (ChrisR) - (1)
                                                                 Hehee! - (jb4)
                                                     Why do you expect hex to be treated differently from decimal - (Arkadiy) - (11)
                                                         Re: Why do you expect hex to be treated differently - (deSitter)
                                                         Man, that's a good question! - (jb4)
                                                         Now that's clarity! -NT - (a6l6e6x) - (8)
                                                             Nope, it's bad math - (deSitter) - (7)
                                                                 But, counters of real things don't need negative values. -NT - (a6l6e6x) - (6)
                                                                     I'd like to add a negative number of votes for Bush. ;-) -NT - (ben_tilly) - (1)
                                                                         That only works on Diebold machines. :) -NT - (a6l6e6x)
                                                                     Certainly - (deSitter) - (3)
                                                                         "Expressive", not "pithy" :) - (Arkadiy) - (2)
                                                                             Re: "Expressive", not "pithy" :) - (deSitter) - (1)
                                                                                 Dunno. - (Arkadiy)
                         Wasn't trying to piss you off... - (hnick) - (1)
                             Interesting assumption: - (jb4)
         Hmm...while the datatype will be first reached, - (Simon_Jester) - (1)
             True, but... - (jb4)
         Re: What is with gcc, anyway?!? - (gdaustin)

And even if we were to live in that alternate universe where they would be right, they'd still be wrong.
112 ms