Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!abvax!iccgcc!browns
From: browns@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Stan Brown)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Interesting Bug in Microsoft C
Message-ID: <3621.27d4b987@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com>
Date: 6 Mar 91 14:42:30 GMT
References: <12541@pucc.Princeton.EDU> <17307@crdgw1.crd.ge.com>
Lines: 15

In article <17307@crdgw1.crd.ge.com>, volpe@camelback.crd.ge.com (Christopher R Volpe) writes:
> The compiler is correct. Using the constant "-2147483648L" is a bug
> if "2147483648" is too big to fit in a long. C doesn't have negative
> constants. It has positive constants preceded by the unary minus operator.
> Thus, "-2147483648L" is not a constant, but an integral constant expression
> containing a subexpression out of range. The correct way to code for this
> value is, as you already noted, "-2147483647L-1".                  

Would LONG_MIN (defined in <limits.h>) not be superior to these magic
numbers?  I know LONG_MIN is not necessarily -214783648, but it has
the virtue that it will compile.

My opinions are mine:  I don't speak for any other person or company.
                   email (until 91/4/30): browns@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cleveland, Ohio, USA    +1 216 371 0043