This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: c/9569: 8 bytes seems to long for long long int
- From: Neil Booth <neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk>
- To: aj at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Cc: gcc-prs at gcc dot gnu dot org,
- Date: 6 Feb 2003 07:06:00 -0000
- Subject: Re: c/9569: 8 bytes seems to long for long long int
- Reply-to: Neil Booth <neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk>
The following reply was made to PR c/9569; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Neil Booth <email@example.com>
To: "Joseph S. Myers" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: Falk Hueffner <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org,
email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
Subject: Re: c/9569: 8 bytes seems to long for long long int
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 06:59:24 +0000
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.