From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2081 invoked by alias); 22 Oct 2009 18:39:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 2045 invoked by uid 48); 22 Oct 2009 18:39:10 -0000 Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:39:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20091022183910.2044.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "eerott at gmail dot com" To: glibc-bugs@sources.redhat.com In-Reply-To: <20071209072619.5461.virdiq@gmail.com> References: <20071209072619.5461.virdiq@gmail.com> Reply-To: sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org Subject: [Bug manual/5461] LONG_LONG_MAX vs LLONG_MAX in range-of-type section of manual X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC Mailing-List: contact glibc-bugs-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: glibc-bugs-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-10/txt/msg00069.txt.bz2 ------- 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.