Junio C Hamano <junkio@xxxxxxx> wrote: > "Shawn O. Pearce" <spearce@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > At least one (older) version of the Solaris C compiler won't allow > > 'unsigned long x = -1' without explicitly casting -1 to a type of > > unsigned long. As annoying as it may be to explicitly perform the > > cast the compiler is right; -1 is not an unsigned value. > > Is the compiler really _right_? The usual integral promotion > rules should apply if it claims to be a C compiler, I would > think. I'm rusty on my C; but I would expect an error if I tried to assign a clearly negative value into an unsigned value, especially in a case like this. It could be compiler is wrong, but as a programmer I'd want to know I wrote something stupid like that, because maybe the variable should have been signed. :-) > But I think the code actually wants ULONG_MAX there. Is that > symbolic constant available at the point of offending > initialization with the header files we already include, I > wonder. Yes, I agree. I almost changed it to ULONG_MAX but didn't since the original author felt -1 was the better choice here. *shrug* For what its worth ULONG_MAX works on my Mac OS X system. Tomorrow when I have access to that "broken" platform again I'll try ULONG_MAX and see if it compiles there. -- Shawn. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html