This is the mail archive of the
gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
RE: Is 'long unsigned long' compliant to standard?
- From: "Scott Moore" <smoore at powerfile dot com>
- To: "Zuxy Meng" <zuxy dot meng at gmail dot com>, <gcc-help at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 14:22:46 -0500
- Subject: RE: Is 'long unsigned long' compliant to standard?
long and unsigned are type-specifiers. They are accepted in a looping syntax
such as declaration-specifiers (see the C grammar). Specifying long twice is
simply redundant, and has no effect on the final type.
-----Original Message-----
From: gcc-help-owner@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-help-owner@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Zuxy Meng
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 5:25 AM
To: gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Is 'long unsigned long' compliant to standard?
Hi Gurus,
GCC accepts it without any warning, but could anybody confirm it's guaranteed to work on any compliant compiler?
--
Zuxy
---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.762 / Virus Database: 510 - Release Date: 9/13/2004
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.762 / Virus Database: 510 - Release Date: 9/13/2004