On Friday 18 May 2007 04:01:19 am Robert Shearman wrote:
+ ULONGLONG llret = (ULONGLONG)a + b;
+ if ((sizeof(SIZE_T) sizeof(ULONGLONG)) (llret 0x))
+ return FALSE;
WOuldn't this be more correct (as well as function when sizeof(SIZE_T) =
sizeof(ULONGLONG)):
SIZE_T res
Chris Robinson wrote:
On Friday 18 May 2007 04:01:19 am Robert Shearman wrote:
+ULONGLONG llret = (ULONGLONG)a + b;
+if ((sizeof(SIZE_T) sizeof(ULONGLONG)) (llret 0x))
+return FALSE;
WOuldn't this be more correct (as well as function when sizeof(SIZE_T) =
On Friday 18 May 2007 05:12:30 am you wrote:
An example that would break using your logic:
2 + (-1)
SIZE_T (if it follows standard size_t) is unsigned, though. Adding a negative
wouldn't be possible.
Chris Robinson wrote:
On Friday 18 May 2007 05:12:30 am you wrote:
An example that would break using your logic:
2 + (-1)
SIZE_T (if it follows standard size_t) is unsigned, though. Adding a negative
wouldn't be possible.
Yes, you're right. The second parameter should probably be
