Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!gatech!seismo!umcp-cs!chris
From: chris@umcp-cs.UUCP (Chris Torek)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c,net.micro,net.micro.pc
Subject: Re: weird C behavior
Message-ID: <614@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 29-Mar-86 18:32:09 EST
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.614
Posted: Sat Mar 29 18:32:09 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 30-Mar-86 10:51:11 EST
References: <557@utastro.UUCP> <436@umcp-cs.UUCP> <2194@watdcsu.UUCP>
Reply-To: chris@maryland.UUCP (Chris Torek)
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 25
Xref: watmath net.lang.c:8307 net.micro:14166 net.micro.pc:7579

In article <2194@watdcsu.UUCP> broehl@watdcsu.UUCP (Bernie Roehl) writes:
>In article <436@umcp-cs.UUCP> chris@umcp-cs.UUCP (Chris Torek) writes:
>>On a 16 bit machine, this should read
>>
>>	printf("%ld\n", 36864);		[me]
>
>Both are wrong on a 16 bit machine, and both will produce garbage (though
>probably different garbage).

False.  I have already explained why, with references to K&R and an
old X3J11 draft.

>What you want is
>
>        printf("%ld\n", 36864L);	[Bernie]

I agree that this is considerably better in practice.  In fact, I
would not at all mind a compiler that gave warnings whenever an
unsuffixed constant did not fit in an integer and was promoted to
long (or unsigned long for `U' suffixed and hex and octal constants,
per X3J11).
-- 
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 1415)
UUCP:	seismo!umcp-cs!chris
CSNet:	chris@umcp-cs		ARPA:	chris@mimsy.umd.edu