strangest systems I've sent email from

Mouse mouse at Rodents-Montreal.ORG
Sun May 22 20:36:49 CDT 2016

>>>  Why bother?  Won't:
>>> 	size_t foo = ~0UL;
>>> do (~0ULL for C99)?

>> Only if size_t is no larger than unsigned long int (unsigned long
>> long int for the ULL version).  I don't think that's guaranteed.

> How can you have the type of `size_t' wider than the widest unsigned
> integer type in the respective revision of the language standard?

unsigned long long int isn't necessarily the largest integral type.
Nor do I see anything requiring size_t to be no larger than it.

uintmax_t, on the other hand, would be fine; it _is_ promised to be no
smaller than size_t (or any other unsigned integral type).

	size_t foo = ~(uintmax_t)0;

should work fine to set foo to all-bits-set.  (Since size_t is
unsigned, this will set it to be its largest possible value.)

I think uintmax_t is another blemish in the standard, since it makes
certain kinds of innovation impossible.  (For example, the presence of
uintmax_t makes it impossible to extend the compiler to recognize
uintXX_t as "unsigned integer type with at least XX bits" for all XX,
presumably with library support for integers over hardware-supported
sizes.  At least without no longer, strictly, being a C compiler.)

/~\ The ASCII				  Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTML		mouse at
/ \ Email!	     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B

More information about the cctalk mailing list