+-------[ Luigi Rizzo ]---------------------- | On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 10:48:57PM +1000, Andrew Milton wrote: | > On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 05:16:53AM -0700, Luigi Rizzo wrote: | > > | > > gcc 3.4 on a 32bit machine complains because the second constant | > > is too large. | > | > Can I ask why the 64 bit constant isn't 0xd00de123deadbeef , which would make | > bits 0-31 the same for both architectures, which might simplify the problem. | | because i want to run with very strict compiler checks and implicit | truncation is always flagged as a Bad Thing(TM). But even if you don't do implicit truncation, filling in the 'new' bits with a constant rather than shifting and filling the bottom bits would give you more options, or a better class of options? -- Andrew Milton akm_at_theinternet.com.auReceived on Tue Sep 11 2007 - 11:25:01 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:17 UTC