Re: gawk printf format problem with negative numbers

[Paul Eggert]

"Shaffer, Kenneth" <address@hidden> writes:

> #define INTMAX_MIN (-9223372036854775808)

That is the bug.  9223372036854775808 cannot be represented as a long
long, so its type is unsigned long long.  -9223372036854775808
therefore evaluates to 9223372036854775808ULL, which is not a negative
value.

Here is a corrected definition:

#define INTMAX_MIN (-1 - 9223372036854775807)

Did your INTMAX_MIN come from a GCC-supplied header, or from a
glibc-supplied header, or from some other source?  The bug does not
exist in my copy of gcc or glibc.  I don't use Cygwin, though.

Can you please get Cygwin fixed by filing a bug report etc.?  This fix
should be made regardless of what Gawk does.  More and more programs
are using INTMAX_MIN, and are expecting it to work as the C standard
requires.  I'd rather not have to worry about porting around this
Cygwin bug.

Thanks.