in reply to Re^9: [OT] LLP64 .v. LP64 portability
in thread [OT] LLP64 .v. LP64 portability
Of course, that doesn't work.... There's a reason casting is cheap.
And there's a reason why you chose to post a non functional example.
it costs nothing because a (positive) signed N-bit integer will always fit in an unsigned N-bit integer regardless and mean the same thing.
And there is a reason why I belatedly added the highlghted parenthesised bit above despite that I originally omitted it because in the context of this discussion, it doesn't (rather shouldn't) need to be stated. But I knew who I was talking to.
You know that neither snippet could ever make sense, so its use as an example to support your position is pointless. As is further discussion I fear. I thought (hoped) we'd got passed this, but I guess not.
|
|---|
| Replies are listed 'Best First'. | |
|---|---|
|
Re^11: [OT] LLP64 .v. LP64 portability
by ikegami (Patriarch) on Apr 23, 2010 at 06:04 UTC | |
|
Re^11: [OT] LLP64 .v. LP64 portability
by ikegami (Patriarch) on Apr 23, 2010 at 06:06 UTC | |
|
Re^11: [OT] LLP64 .v. LP64 portability
by ikegami (Patriarch) on Apr 23, 2010 at 06:07 UTC |