22 May
2016
22 May
'16
10:09 a.m.
On Sun, 22 May 2016, Guy Dawson wrote:
While I think that
size_t foo = (size_t)(-1);
is what C would interpret as being meant. What the size of the thing that
by default, in this implementation, -1 would be stored in.
Why bother? Won't:
size_t foo = ~0UL;
do (~0ULL for C99)? Or is it just an example for the purpose of general
consideration rather than a solution for a specific problem?
Maciej
I'm not even sure
size_t foo = (size_t)-1;
is legal,
In C++, I don't know. In C, I'm fairly sure it's legal.
or even does what I expect it to do (namely---set
foo to the largest
size_t value possible (pre C99).
I'm not sure it does that. If you want that, I think you want
size_t foo = -(size_t)1;