On Sat, 16 Jun 2001, Mike Stilson wrote: > side note: I didn't get them with gcc 2.95.2 complaining about the > signedness of %Lu or %Ld that I can remember, although I did get the > errors at comparisons on a few scattered lines. Did that switch long > time ago though so I might be forgetting too. You're right. I don't know why it doesn't complain about the signedness. I think it should, especially with -Wall. But, suffice it to say, it doesn't warn you about it. > tested, retested, beat on, fed bogus data, you name it; it works fine. > (suppose I coulda used digits too, just didn't) The problem with using digits is that you could have "1234". Now is this a number representing (1 << 1) | (1 << 4) | (1 << 6) | (1 << 7) | (1 << 10) or if it's an ASCII representation of (1 << 54) | (1 << 55) | (1 << 56) | (1 << 57) assuming that 0-9 follow A-Z in flags[]? You can't tell. > /* I prefer that method to strtoul, suppose it could work though, > * but I did have problems with it a few other places. > * Since I control the input to it, format isn't a problem. > */ strtoul() works for unsigned long int, not unsigned long long int. Thus, strtoul() probably won't work. -- Daniel A. Koepke (dak), dkoepke@circlemud.org Caveat emptor: I say what I mean and mean what I say. Listen well. Caveat venditor: Say what you mean, mean what you say. Say it well. -- +---------------------------------------------------------------+ | FAQ: http://qsilver.queensu.ca/~fletchra/Circle/list-faq.html | | Archives: http://post.queensu.ca/listserv/wwwarch/circle.html | +---------------------------------------------------------------+
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/05/01 PST