From: Borut R. <bor...@si...> - 2007-05-08 05:17:16
|
Maarten Brock wrote: >> Just as an additional info: I tried it with 16 bit watcom compiler and I >> got the expected result 263 (0xfd) with 19200L. >> > > Sure, but what does it give without the L? Is it still > 0xFD? > > Yes, my report was incomplete: without L the result is 163. If we can trust the watcom C, the longlit.c regtest test is wrong: there should be a L after 19200. Maybe we could add an other test without the L and change the assertion value. The problem here is that I don't know how the watcom C calculated 163... Borut |