From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Dec 21 19:29:27 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8815D16A4CE for ; Tue, 21 Dec 2004 19:29:27 +0000 (GMT) Received: from av1-2-sn1.fre.skanova.net (av1-2-sn1.fre.skanova.net [81.228.11.108]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DDCD43D41 for ; Tue, 21 Dec 2004 19:29:26 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from ertr1013@student.uu.se) Received: by av1-2-sn1.fre.skanova.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id B3F1137FAC; Tue, 21 Dec 2004 20:29:25 +0100 (CET) Received: from smtp2-2-sn2.hy.skanova.net (smtp2-2-sn2.hy.skanova.net [81.228.8.178]) by av1-2-sn1.fre.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A43D237F66 for ; Tue, 21 Dec 2004 20:29:25 +0100 (CET) Received: from falcon.midgard.homeip.net (h201n1fls24o1048.bredband.comhem.se [212.181.162.201]) by smtp2-2-sn2.hy.skanova.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 5801437E4E for ; Tue, 21 Dec 2004 20:29:25 +0100 (CET) Received: (qmail 27670 invoked by uid 1001); 21 Dec 2004 19:29:24 -0000 Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 20:29:24 +0100 From: Erik Trulsson To: Pete French Message-ID: <20041221192924.GA27658@falcon.midgard.homeip.net> Mail-Followup-To: Pete French , brett@lariat.org, colin.percival@wadham.ox.ac.uk, stable@freebsd.org References: <6.2.0.14.2.20041221114103.053aa0b8@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i cc: brett@lariat.org cc: stable@freebsd.org cc: colin.percival@wadham.ox.ac.uk Subject: Re: Will there be a 5.3.1? X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 19:29:27 -0000 On Tue, Dec 21, 2004 at 07:08:50PM +0000, Pete French wrote: > > It's the C language. While it's claimed to be "portable," it really doesn't > > address integer size and endianism well enough. > > All the more reason to be careful you might have thought :-) Mind you, > trying to explain to students why 'long x = 65535;' set x equal to -1 > always made me feel like I was trying to appologise for the indefensible! Buggy compilers are indefensible, yes, but why try to apologise for it? 'long x = 65535;' will not set x to -1, even with 16-bit ints. -- Erik Trulsson ertr1013@student.uu.se