Boost logo

Boost :

From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2021-01-27 21:07:05

On 1/27/21 11:58 PM, Gavin Lambert via Boost wrote:
> ((uint32_t) -1) assumed equivalent to 0xFFFFFFFFu (which is not guaranteed)

Is it not? IIRC, by the standard C++ the above is equivalent to
`(uint32_t)((uint32_t)0u - 1)`, which must give 0xFFFFFFFF.

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at