Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 20:35:12 +0200
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To: "Stephen Silver" <djgpp AT argentum DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
Message-Id: <2593-Sun04Feb2001203512+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-Mailer: Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.3.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.6
CC: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <001801c08eb5$4cf7b1e0$23d4883e@oemcomputer>
	(djgpp AT argentum DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk)
Subject: Re: stdint.h
References:  <001801c08eb5$4cf7b1e0$23d4883e AT oemcomputer>
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

> From: "Stephen Silver" <djgpp AT argentum DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
> Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 14:18:06 -0000
> >
> > However, I'm not sure we need to push it as far as -2147483648.  wint_t 
> > should hold everything wchar_t does and WEOF.  C99 also seems to require 
> > that WINT_MIN is at most -32767, which seems to be sufficient both for 
> > wchar_t, which is unsigned short, and for WEOF, which is -1.
> >
> > So what are the reasons for pushing WINT_MIN all the way to INT_MIN?
> 
> I assumed that WINT_MIN was supposed to represent the minimum
> possible value of a wint_t.  However, the C99 standard (or, at least,
> the draft) does not seem to say this explicitly.  Nonetheless, I
> think it would be strange if it were possible to assign a value less
> than WINT_MIN to a wint_t.

Yes, I think you are right.  Anything but INT_MIN would be confusing.