Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!nntp.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Keith Thompson Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: type of decimal constants in msvc Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2026 19:22:51 -0800 Organization: None to speak of Lines: 34 Message-ID: <878qcaap9w.fsf@example.invalid> 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> <86pl5nezbc.fsf@linuxsc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2026 03:22:52 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="904fdc8ce99c4265d8d70c325ce3d825"; logging-data="847899"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/hY9+hoktR6R9muuBnsC78" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Cancel-Lock: sha1:1zwA/Ir0TuxyNIJTfFtR57Bx5zk= sha1:RlhAc/Usf7vgRS4C/fWmT8sH+x4= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:396715 Tim Rentsch writes: > Keith Thompson writes: >> Tim Rentsch writes: >>> Keith Thompson writes: >>>> Thiago Adams 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. That's extremely vague. I won't bother asking you for clarity. -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */