long long vs int64_t

This is merely a historical archive of years 2008-2021, before the migration to mailman3.

A maintained and still updated list archive can be found at https://lists.osmocom.org/hyperkitty/list/OpenBSC@lists.osmocom.org/.

Neels Hofmeyr nhofmeyr at sysmocom.de
Wed Sep 15 06:18:52 UTC 2021


On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 02:45:42AM +0000, scan-admin at coverity.com wrote:
> >>>     CID 240103:    (CONSTANT_EXPRESSION_RESULT)
> >>>     "val < -9223372036854775808LL /* -9223372036854775807L - 1 */" is always false regardless of the values of its operands. This occurs as the logical operand of "if".
> 1434     	if (val < INT64_MIN) {
> 1435     		if (result)
> 1436     			*result = INT64_MIN;
> 1437     		return -ERANGE;
> 1438     	}

Yes I know, but is it guaranteed on all archs in past and future that long long int is 64 bit?

> >>>     CID 240103:    (CONSTANT_EXPRESSION_RESULT)
> >>>     "val > 9223372036854775807L" is always false regardless of the values of its operands. This occurs as the logical operand of "if".
> 1439     	if (val > INT64_MAX) {
> 1440     		if (result)
> 1441     			*result = INT64_MAX;
> 1442     		return -ERANGE;
> 1443     	}

same.

I'd just ignore these warnings if that's ok with everyone else.

~N



More information about the OpenBSC mailing list