Re: [OT] Compiler warning level
From: Michael Mair (Michael.Mair_at_invalid.invalid)
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 09:20:35 +0100
Old Wolf wrote:
> pete <email@example.com> wrote:
>>Old Wolf wrote:
>>> (I would prefer that (-1 < 0x1) were TRUE).
>>(-1 < 0x1) is true.
>>(-1 < 0x1u) is false.
> Right. I thought that 0x.. constants were unsigned, I must
> have been confusing that with some other situation
> (although I can't think what).
Probably you thought of the printf/scanf format %x which
expects unsigned integers.
-- E-Mail: Mine is an /at/ gmx /dot/ de address.