Re: [OT] Compiler warning level
From: Michael Mair (Michael.Mair_at_invalid.invalid)
Date: 11/17/04
- Next message: Richard Bos: "Re: const members"
- Previous message: Spendius: "C = only language that easily deals with shared mem. access ?"
- In reply to: Old Wolf: "Re: [OT] Compiler warning level"
- Next in thread: Charlie Gordon: "Re: [OT] Compiler warning level"
- Reply: Charlie Gordon: "Re: [OT] Compiler warning level"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 09:20:35 +0100
Old Wolf wrote:
> pete <pfiland@mindspring.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.
Cheers
Michael
-- E-Mail: Mine is an /at/ gmx /dot/ de address.
- Next message: Richard Bos: "Re: const members"
- Previous message: Spendius: "C = only language that easily deals with shared mem. access ?"
- In reply to: Old Wolf: "Re: [OT] Compiler warning level"
- Next in thread: Charlie Gordon: "Re: [OT] Compiler warning level"
- Reply: Charlie Gordon: "Re: [OT] Compiler warning level"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|