Errors, bugs, questions - page 1127
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
What does this rearrangement do? t was lower than ULONG_MAX-1 and remains the same.
I cited this wrong example - it was a comparison with int, while here it is with long
Theuint and ulongtypes have a higher priority than int and long:
It would be logical to use conversion to a higher type in the compared expressions.
But this does not seem to apply to the loop expressions being checked.
ULONG_MAX has no type per se
ULONG_MAX has no type per se, compared to int it will be int, compared to long it will be long
And compared to ulong?
ULONG_MAX has no type per se, compared to int it will be int, compared to long it will be long
Can it be the other way round?
int and long versus ulong would be ulong?
Can it be the other way round?
int and long versus ulong would be ulong?
The cycles do seem to be converting to a signed type:
And no iteration is performed.
When comparing signed and unsigned, a warning is issued, unless one is explicitly converted to the other, there will probably be a bitwise comparison