strangest systems I've sent email from
Maciej W. Rozycki
macro at linux-mips.org
Sun May 22 12:09:26 CDT 2016
On Sun, 22 May 2016, Guy Dawson wrote:
> >> I'm not even sure
> >> size_t foo = (size_t)-1;
> >> is legal,
> > In C++, I don't know. In C, I'm fairly sure it's legal.
> >> or even does what I expect it to do (namely---set foo to the largest
> >> size_t value possible (pre C99).
> > I'm not sure it does that. If you want that, I think you want
> > size_t foo = -(size_t)1;
> While I think that
> size_t foo = (size_t)(-1);
> is what C would interpret as being meant. What the size of the thing that
> by default, in this implementation, -1 would be stored in.
Why bother? Won't:
size_t foo = ~0UL;
do (~0ULL for C99)? Or is it just an example for the purpose of general
consideration rather than a solution for a specific problem?
More information about the cctalk