This is the mail archive of the
glibc-bugs@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
[Bug manual/5461] LONG_LONG_MAX vs LLONG_MAX in range-of-type section of manual
- From: "eerott at gmail dot com" <sourceware-bugzilla at sourceware dot org>
- To: glibc-bugs at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: 22 Oct 2009 18:39:10 -0000
- Subject: [Bug manual/5461] LONG_LONG_MAX vs LLONG_MAX in range-of-type section of manual
- References: <20071209072619.5461.virdiq@gmail.com>
- Reply-to: sourceware-bugzilla at sourceware dot org
------- Additional Comments From eerott at gmail dot com 2009-10-22 18:39 -------
LONG_LONG_* defines are from the time before C99 standardized to LLONG_*
defines. I.e. the current manual seems about 10 years obsolete, I think it's
time to refresh it...
These obsolete defines are used also elsewhere in the manual, for example here:
http://www.gnu.org/s/libc/manual/html_node/Parsing-of-Integers.html
Should be trivial to fix with 's/LONG_LONG_/LLONG_/g' on the whole manual.
I think this should be pretty safe to do as when I grepped the glibc header
files for LONG_LONG_, I got only this:
/usr/include/endian.h:# define __LONG_LONG_PAIR(HI, LO) LO, HI
/usr/include/endian.h:# define __LONG_LONG_PAIR(HI, LO) HI, LO
/usr/include/limits.h:# define LLONG_MAX __LONG_LONG_MAX__
so I don't think there to be any valid instances of LONG_LONG_ in the manual,
except maybe in the history section, if it has such...
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |eerott at gmail dot com
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5461
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.