Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!nntp.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: type of decimal constants in msvc
Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2026 18:32:23 -0800
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <86pl5nezbc.fsf@linuxsc.com>
References: <1097ivh$ntii$1@dont-email.me> <10i3dpt$14ajr$1@dont-email.me> <875xa2u0p9.fsf@example.invalid> <10i3hkn$15jea$1@dont-email.me> <871pkqtdyy.fsf@example.invalid> <868qeusm4f.fsf@linuxsc.com> <87a4zawaj7.fsf@example.invalid>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2026 02:32:25 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="879346d16fc7c1cd3f18baf5c462c148"; logging-data="805250"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18YY+a/VRzV2AyBqPwngh2UCL3YAi6J4eA="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:DV6AT8HF/v0F6j0RzRkSvwJjog4= sha1:P5KC/UJ3SUso2nWoDAftIqU31Io=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:396713

Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:

> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
>
>> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Em 19/12/2025 09:15, Keith Thompson escreveu:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>> gcc's warning for 18408377700990114895 (which is slightly smaller
>>>>> than 2**64) is "integer constant is so large that it is unsigned".
>>>>> This is *incorrect* (and I think it's been reported as a bug), but
>>>>> the incorrect wording of the warning is not a conformance issue.
>>>>
>>>> I am not understating why do you think this is a bug?
>>>> Because it should not compile?
>>>
>>> No, because the message is factually incorrect.
>>
>> No, it isn't.  The message might be misleading but it isn't wrong.
>>
>>> The integer constant 18408377700990114895 is not of any unsigned type.
>>
>> The message doesn't say the constant has an unsigned type.  It says
>> only that the constant is unsigned.
>
> What distinction are you making?

The distinction I'm making is between what the statement actually
says rather than how it might be interpreted.