Re: What is your opinion about unsigned int u = -2 ?

You must have done something odd when posting your followup.  The
attributions are messed up.

Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> writes:

-------- Mensagem encaminhada --------
Assunto: Re: What is your opinion about unsigned int u = -2 ?
Data: Fri, 02 Aug 2024 19:29:27 -0700
De: Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com>
Organização: None to speak of
Grupos de notícias: comp.lang.c
Referências: <v8dfo9$1k7cg$1@dont-email.me>
<pan$d2c8a$8c54ac9f$29a202e0$12c6ce86@invalid.invalid>
<87bk2cecan.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <v8inds$2qpqh$1@dont-email.me>
<v8iqnr$7l3c$1@news.xmission.com> <v8irje$2rolg$1@dont-email.me>
<87r0b6g3qx.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
<v8jbj5$2us0r$4@dont-email.me> <v8jvln$33atp$1@dont-email.me>
<v8k055$33fcl$1@dont-email.me>
<87cymqfl3m.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
<v8k2ck$33nca$2@dont-email.me>
>
Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> writes:

Em 8/2/2024 10:31 PM, Keith Thompson escreveu:

Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> writes:
[...]

It is interesting to compare constexpr with the existing constant
expression in C that works with integers.Compilers extend to work with
unsigned long long.
constexpr works with the sizes as defined , for instance char.

I'm not sure what you mean by "Compilers extend to work with
unsigned long long.".

>
enum {C = 18446744073709551615 -1 };
//        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
//        ^ warning: integer constant is so large that it is unsigned
>
https://godbolt.org/z/K7hzczETP

>
Since 18446744073709551615 is 2**64-1, it's outside the range of any
signed integer type in typical implementations.  Since unsuffixed
integer constants are of some signed type (since C99), that constant is
likely to cause problems.  You could write 18446744073709551615ull.
>
That's a rather odd warning.  In C90, an unsuffixed integer constant's
type was the first of (int, long int, unsigned long int) in which its
value would fit.  In C99 and later, an unsuffixed integer constant is of
type int, long int, or long long int, *never* of any unsigned type.
Since 18446744073709551615 exceeds ULLONG_MAX (assuming 64 bits),
apparently gcc treats it as having an unsigned type as an extension.
>

KT> (My quick experiment indicates that, at least on my system,
KT> 18446744073709551615 is of type __int128 and, bizarrely,
KT> 18446744073709551616 is of type int with the value 0.  This seems
KT> like a bug.)

[...]

TA> I checked and 18446744073709551615 is not unsigned long long
TA>
TA> static_assert(TYPE_IS(18446744073709551615, unsigned long long));
TA>
TA> https://godbolt.org/z/vnzWWxvjr

Right.  As I said, gcc gives it type __int128.  This is to be expected
if __int128 is an *extended integer type*, but in fact it's an
extension, and gcc's behavior appears reasonable on that basis.  In the
absence of integer types wider than 64 bits, 18446744073709551615
(2**64-1) has no type.  If you need that particular value in your code,
I suggest finding a different way to express it.  18446744073709551615u
or 0xffffffffffffffff are possibilities; so is ULLONG_MAX if long long
is 64 bits and that expresses your intent more clearly.

"In C99 and later, an unsuffixed integer constant is of
type int, long int, or long long int, *never* of any unsigned type."

>
I think this should be reviewed before they constexpr was added in C.

That's not going to happen, and I'm not sure why it should.

I am fixing my constant expression evaluation in cake and I will share
the code of "old" constant expressions and new constexpr. So constexpr
does not have restriction on signed types only.

constexpr has never been restricted to signed types.  Unsuffixed integer
constants are.  That's why there are suffixed integer constants.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */