From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/12645
Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@port70.net>
Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general
Subject: Re: Maybe not a bug but a possible omission?
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 19:19:49 +0200
Message-ID: <20180328171948.GC4418@port70.net>
References: <CACxTtGtN4vkYAS=+9oMLCFDvpXQqsgQFqYJEcbS1naCqaNcqOw@mail.gmail.com>
 <B20288AA-50AB-4C6D-AF96-B626FCB065CD@hanauska.name>
 <CACxTtGu8eakWLOoV2WV4Tb3+jcrQLux6_HmmCNL0hRY6yDDs_A@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1522257484 11451 195.159.176.226 (28 Mar 2018 17:18:04 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 17:18:04 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.1 (2017-09-22)
To: musl@lists.openwall.com
Original-X-From: musl-return-12659-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Wed Mar 28 19:17:59 2018
Return-path: <musl-return-12659-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com>
Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org
Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200])
	by blaine.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <musl-return-12659-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com>)
	id 1f1Ehy-0002oK-78
	for gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org; Wed, 28 Mar 2018 19:17:58 +0200
Original-Received: (qmail 15671 invoked by uid 550); 28 Mar 2018 17:20:02 -0000
Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:musl@lists.openwall.com>
List-Help: <mailto:musl-help@lists.openwall.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:musl-unsubscribe@lists.openwall.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:musl-subscribe@lists.openwall.com>
List-ID: <musl.lists.openwall.com>
Original-Received: (qmail 15648 invoked from network); 28 Mar 2018 17:20:01 -0000
Mail-Followup-To: musl@lists.openwall.com
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CACxTtGu8eakWLOoV2WV4Tb3+jcrQLux6_HmmCNL0hRY6yDDs_A@mail.gmail.com>
Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:12645
Archived-At: <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/12645>

* Jon Scobie <jon.scobie@callsign.com> [2018-03-28 14:33:23 +0100]:
> Well, I definitely agree that instead of definitions like
> 
> #define INT64_MIN  (-1-0x7fffffffffffffff)
> 
> we should have
> 
> #define INT64_MIN  (-1 - INT64_C(0x7fffffffffffffff))
> 

why?

"The macro INTN_C(value) shall expand to an integer constant expression corresponding to the type int_leastN_t"

i dont think it is necessary or appropriate: the c rules
already handles this portably: the const has the lowest
rank 64bit signed int type, any additional complication
can just get the type wrong.