Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 13:12:32 +0200 From: "Eli Zaretskii" Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com Message-Id: <6137-Fri09Feb2001131231+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il> X-Mailer: Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.3.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.6 In-reply-to: <2593-Sun04Feb2001203512+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il> Subject: Re: stdint.h References: <001801c08eb5$4cf7b1e0$23d4883e AT oemcomputer> <2593-Sun04Feb2001203512+0200-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> 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 > Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 20:35:12 +0200 > From: "Eli Zaretskii" > > > From: "Stephen Silver" > > 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. I'd like to thank everybody for the feedback. stdint.h is now committed.