RE: [lwip-devel] Port on 16 bits processor: problem in ip4_addr_netmask_valid() function

[Bill Auerbach]

>I guess it should rather be '1UL' instead of '(u32_t)1U' (which should
>also work...). Does 1UL yield to a 32-bit constant for your controller?

I would think a significant amount of C code in the universe would fail if the 
compiler implemented long/unsigned long using 16 bits.

If you're testing the L (and U) suffix, they are defined at least in the C89 C 
standard so I can't imagine they don't work. You could compile-time check it if 
you wanted.

Bill