Ramsay Jones <ram...@ramsayjones.plus.com> writes: > In a similar vein, on systems which use a 64-bit representation of the > 'unsigned long' type, the USTAR_MAX_SIZE constant macro is defined with > the value 077777777777ULL. Although this does not cause any warning > messages to be issued, it would be more appropriate for this constant > to use an 'UL' type suffix rather than 'ULL'.
... it is more appropriate because we know the recipient is "unsigned long", not "unsigned long long", in this case? As opposed to the case of timestamp_t, which is opaque and could be "unsigned long long"? That makes sense to me, even though it took a bit of thinking aloud to understand. Looks good; thanks.
