This is the mail archive of the gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: c/9569: 8 bytes seems to long for long long int

From: Neil Booth <neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk>
To: "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk>
Cc: Falk Hueffner <falk dot hueffner at student dot uni-tuebingen dot de>, aj at gcc dot gnu dot org,gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org, stefaandr at hotmail dot com, gcc-gnats at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 06:59:24 +0000
Subject: Re: c/9569: 8 bytes seems to long for long long int
References: <87u1fi2s9i.fsf@student.uni-tuebingen.de> <Pine.LNX.4.33.0302060003020.15131-100000@kern.srcf.societies.cam.ac.uk>

Joseph S. Myers wrote:-

> On 6 Feb 2003, Falk Hueffner wrote:
> 
> > I still don't get it. In C99, this is perfectly legal code, and does
> > what the reporter wants. It is of course documented nowhere, but I
> > would assume that g++ inherits C99's long long semantics if long long
> > is enabled. Why not this part?
> 
> C++98 is stricter than C90 about integer constants.  _Explicitly_ using
> long long is one thing (accepted as an extension by the C++ compiler),
> _implicitly_ using it (by having too large an integer constant without a
> suffix) is another.  The behaviour may or may not be as intended; that's
> for the C++ maintainers to work out.

I suggest the PR be re-opened then.

Neil.

References:
- Re: c/9569: 8 bytes seems to long for long long int
  - From: Falk Hueffner
- Re: c/9569: 8 bytes seems to long for long long int
  - From: Joseph S. Myers

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]