Can we assign a unsigned int varaible, 0xFULL literal

Question

I wanted to understand the difference between the following two definitions

unsigned long long id = 0x0FULL; //should be correct
unsigned int store = 0X0FULL;  // ?? Can this be done 

printf("id is : 0x%llx store is : 0x%x\n",id,store);

An output for the the two variables returns the same value

id is : 0xf store is : 0xf

score 7 · Accepted Answer · 2015-02-09T16:55:55.803

7

It's just a coincidence that it happens to spell out a word. The ULL suffix means you've got an unsigned long long literal, and 0xF or 0x0F you already know: that's 15, except expressed in hexadecimal.

edited Feb 09 '15 at 16:55

answered Feb 09 '15 at 16:16

You mean 15 in decimal right? Also I get that 0xFULL is a `ULL` literal so you mean would it be wrong to do something like `unsigned int store = 0X0FULL;` – cmidi Feb 09 '15 at 16:51
2

@cmidi I mean that's decimal 15, expressed in hexadecimal. I see I worded it a bit confusingly. `unsigned int store = 0x0FULL;` is valid but weird. It's valid because there is an implicit conversion between any two integral types, including from `unsigned long long` to `unsigned int`. It's weird because if you want an `unsigned int`, why would you use an `ULL` suffix? – Feb 09 '15 at 16:55
I was just trying to chase down a problem in a open source library code, which has something similar in the code – cmidi Feb 09 '15 at 17:03

score 5 · Answer 2 · answered Feb 09 '15 at 16:16

5

0x0f is an int with the value 15.

0x0full is an unsigned long long with the value 15.

answered Feb 09 '15 at 16:16

fredoverflow

256,549
94
388
662

Can we assign a unsigned int varaible, 0xFULL literal

2 Answers2