Is #define THING -10 completely safe?

[Nathan Sidwell]

In article <14998 at smoke.brl.mil> gwyn at smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) writes:
>In article <33 at christmas.UUCP> rtm at island.COM (Richard Minner) writes:
>>Something I've been curious about, should the above be
>>#define INT_MIN   (-2147483648)
>
>Yes.
>
>>The precedence rules seem to imply that ()'s aren't needed
>>with a negative integer constant.
>
>There are contexts that could cause trouble, e.g. "x-INT_MIN"
>or "x=INT_MIN".  While the C standard requires that these work
>as expected, many older C implementations will misinterpret
>these.

Well gcc -ansi doesn't, 
source is

#define NUM -10
main()
{
  int x;
  x = x-NUM;
  x = 1/**/2;
}

preprocessor output is

main()
{
  int x;
  x = x--10;
  x = 1 2;
}

which fails, note that it is partly correct as
the /**/ has been reduced to a space. This is gcc 1.36, has it been
fixed in later versions?

Nathan Sidwell, INMOS Ltd, UK         JANET:    nathan at uk.co.inmos
Generic disclaimer applies            UUCP:     ukc!inmos!nathan
This space unintentionally filled     INTERNET: nathan at inmos.com