[Bug manual/5461] New: LONG_LONG_MAX vs LLONG_MAX in range-of-type section of manual

[Bug manual/5461] New: LONG_LONG_MAX vs LLONG_MAX in range-of-type section of manual

[virdiq at gmail dot com]

It appears that the current online manual refers to LONG_LONG_MAX and
ULONG_LONG_MAX at:
http://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_node/Range-of-Type.html#Range-of-Type

Instead of LLONG_MAX and ULLONG_MAX as defined in limits.h (checked against
2.6.1 and 2.7).

LONG_LONG_MAX/ULONG_LONG_MAX aren't defined in limits.h as the manual seems to
indicate.

-- 
           Summary: LONG_LONG_MAX vs LLONG_MAX in range-of-type section of
                    manual
           Product: glibc
           Version: unspecified
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: manual
        AssignedTo: roland at gnu dot org
        ReportedBy: virdiq at gmail dot com
                CC: glibc-bugs at sources dot redhat 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.

[Bug manual/5461] LONG_LONG_MAX vs LLONG_MAX in range-of-type section of manual

[eerott at gmail dot com]

------- 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.

[Bug manual/5461] LONG_LONG_MAX vs LLONG_MAX in range-of-type section of manual

[jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5461

Joseph Myers <jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED

--- Comment #2 from Joseph Myers <jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-02-22 21:07:05 UTC ---
Fixed.

commit 7bb764bcb177f580e9f676680423ed3ddb13d8e7
Author: Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com>
Date:   Wed Feb 22 21:04:27 2012 +0000

    Prefer C99 names for long long limit macros.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.