Re: Proposal for the 'long long' problems

[Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at codesourcery dot com>]

Phil Edwards <pedwards@disaster.jaj.com> writes:

| On Thu, Nov 01, 2001 at 05:50:19PM +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > | I say, also unguarded.  There's "only" macros and compiler support there
| > | too, no C library calls that I can see.
| > 
| > Agreed for the C library calls part.  
| > But those macros are considtionally defined.  
| 
| If you think they should be, okay.

I do -not- think they should be or not should be :-)
I was just asking your opinion about the status of 
numeric_limits<long long> in your revised proposal.  Whatever is
decided, that should be done consistently. 

|  Should they remain guarded by
| _USE_LONG_LONG or should we define them on _USE_C99 like the others instead?

I would prefer not to guard them with _USE_C99 because
numeric_limits<long long>::max() may be used in I/O operations,

-- Gaby