From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz@is.elta.co.il>
To: kevinb@cygnus.com
Cc: jeffh@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.cygnus.com
Subject: Re: [RFA] fix gdb.base/remote.c for small int targets
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 09:01:00 -0000
Message-id: <3791-Fri31Aug2001185918+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
References: <Pine.SOL.3.91.1010830220552.25088t-100000@taarna.cygnus.com> <2110-Fri31Aug2001102556+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il> <1010831152902.ZM23264@ocotillo.lan>
X-SW-Source: 2001-08/msg00320.html

> Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 08:29:02 -0700
> From: Kevin Buettner <kevinb@cygnus.com>
> 
> > > +#if INT_MAX < 32768
> > 
> > Shouldn't you use 32768L or 32768U?  If an int is only 16 bits wide,
> > 32768 might overflow into the sign bit, and then all bets are off.
> 
> Although not incorrect, using 32768L or 32768U is not necessary. 
> According to section 7.11.1 of Harbison and Steele:

What version of the C standard is this from?  If that's C99, I don't
think we can assume all compilers comply with it.

Anyway, I know at least one compiler which would print a warning about
large constants being converted to unsigned.  I think it's best to
avoid warnings, even if they are not mandated by the standard.