Hello Guido, On Tue, 15 Oct 2002, Guido van Rossum wrote: > I like this one, as well as the one using 64-bit precision. I wonder > if we could collect a bunch of different macros and make them tunable > for different platforms? Doable. I experimented with some macros that do (unsigned int)*(unsigned int)->size_t, where the macro to use is selected according to #if's based on the relative size of int, long and long long. > (...) The trick will > to ensure that the macro arguments are used exactly once in all > versions (otherwise switching macros might unveal a new class of > bugs). Harder... > Apart from *how* to check, there's a variety of cases depending on the > types of the input and output variables. True as well... Why are C macros so limited?... > There are also additions, usually of small constants, which generally > operate on the size_t. If we are sure these are small, we can just add without any check if we reserve a whole range of values for "overflow", e.g. ((size_t)~0x7fff) to ((size_t)~0). Not too clean however. Armin
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4