On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 10:23:46AM +0300, Valery Ushakov wrote: > > Log Message: > > PR 49636 Henning Petersen: use "0L" to return 0 from a function returning > > long, and test its returned value against "0L" instead of "0". > > > > This is not especially necessary, but it's also harmless. > > No, it's not. It sends a strong signal that integer promotions are > not enough here, and that explicit cast/sufix is required for some > reason. Yet, no such reason is provided in the PR. Please revert. > Or are you going to tag all long zeroes in the tree as 0L?
Why pursue the whole tree? "A foolish consistency..." anyway, like I said last night, if you care that much feel free to revert it. -- David A. Holland dholl...@netbsd.org