subject:"\[Issue 13606\] erroneous overflow error in negative long literal"

[Issue 13606] erroneous overflow error in negative long literal

2014-11-21 Thread via Digitalmars-d-bugs

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13606 hst...@quickfur.ath.cx changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Issue 13606] erroneous overflow error in negative long literal

2014-11-21 Thread via Digitalmars-d-bugs

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13606 safety0ff.bugz changed: What|Removed |Added CC||safety0ff.b...@gmail.com --- Comment #9 fro

[Issue 13606] erroneous overflow error in negative long literal

2014-11-01 Thread via Digitalmars-d-bugs

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13606 Kenji Hara changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|minor |enhancement --- Comment #8 from Kenji Hara ---

[Issue 13606] erroneous overflow error in negative long literal

2014-10-30 Thread via Digitalmars-d-bugs

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13606 hst...@quickfur.ath.cx changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hst...@quickfur.ath.cx --- Comment #

[Issue 13606] erroneous overflow error in negative long literal

2014-10-12 Thread via Digitalmars-d-bugs

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13606 --- Comment #6 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc --- (In reply to Ketmar Dark from comment #5) > with stressed safety it's strange that such assignments are allowed. Most persons have definition of "language safety" different from the D one. D is currentl

[Issue 13606] erroneous overflow error in negative long literal

2014-10-12 Thread via Digitalmars-d-bugs

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13606 --- Comment #5 from Ketmar Dark --- (In reply to bearophile_hugs from comment #4) > Currently D accepts assignments from signed without errors or warnings, this > is an example of "weak typing" in D: yeah, it's bad. one can argue that we are not losi

[Issue 13606] erroneous overflow error in negative long literal

2014-10-12 Thread via Digitalmars-d-bugs

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13606 --- Comment #4 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc --- (In reply to Ketmar Dark from comment #3) > by the way: it it correct to accept negative literals with "u" and "uL"? i'm > thing that such literals should be rejected with "overflow" (or "underflow") > e

[Issue 13606] erroneous overflow error in negative long literal

2014-10-12 Thread via Digitalmars-d-bugs

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13606 --- Comment #3 from Ketmar Dark --- (In reply to bearophile_hugs from comment #2) > (In reply to Ketmar Dark from comment #1) > > p.s. i know about workaround with "-9223372036854775808uL", yet i'm sure > > that compiler should not reject this value