From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/6648 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rich Felker Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] fix a minor bug for the definition of WINT_MIN Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2014 14:47:12 -0500 Message-ID: <20141202194712.GH29621@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <1416926909.16006.926.camel@eris.loria.fr> <20141202180633.GE29621@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <1417548198.4936.1108.camel@eris.loria.fr> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1417549652 1287 80.91.229.3 (2 Dec 2014 19:47:32 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2014 19:47:32 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-6661-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Tue Dec 02 20:47:27 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XvtPy-000562-Vd for gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2014 20:47:27 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 11668 invoked by uid 550); 2 Dec 2014 19:47:25 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Original-Received: (qmail 11646 invoked from network); 2 Dec 2014 19:47:24 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1417548198.4936.1108.camel@eris.loria.fr> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Original-Sender: Rich Felker Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:6648 Archived-At: On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 08:23:18PM +0100, Jens Gustedt wrote: > Am Dienstag, den 02.12.2014, 13:06 -0500 schrieb Rich Felker: > > On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 03:50:17PM +0100, Jens Gustedt wrote: > > > This must be an unsigned value. > > > --- > > > include/stdint.h | 2 +- > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/include/stdint.h b/include/stdint.h > > > index 8b91163..8b81ca0 100644 > > > --- a/include/stdint.h > > > +++ b/include/stdint.h > > > @@ -78,7 +78,7 @@ typedef uint64_t uint_least64_t; > > > #define INTMAX_MAX INT64_MAX > > > #define UINTMAX_MAX UINT64_MAX > > > > > > -#define WINT_MIN 0 > > > +#define WINT_MIN (+_UINTEGER_C(uint32_t, 0)) > > > #define WINT_MAX UINT32_MAX > > > > Indeed, but 0U would be a much nicer way of writing it. > > But this would be wrong on platforms with 16 bit int, no? POSIX requires int to be at least 32 bits. > > Also I'm wondering why I have wint_t in the arch-specific > > alltypes.h.in files if stdint.h is assuming the type is > > unsigned/32-bit, and it actually is for all archs. Perhaps we should > > move it into the shared part of alltypes.h.in? > > don't we have archs with 16 bit int? No. And we don't have archs with int > 32 bits either because too much would break with no practical benefits. (For example, uint32_t would be smaller than int and thus would be subject to default promotions, UB on overflow, etc. and there would be no way to get either a 16-bit type or a 32-bit type without extended integer types.) > but right, even then we could move it up and define it as uint32_t That would not work directly, as wint_t is exposed in places that don't expose uint32_t. Rich