Re: long long, C++ testsuite and -ansi -pedantic-errors

[Marc Espie <espie at quatramaran dot ens dot fr>]

In article <200006130131.SAA28812@kankakee.wrs.com> you write:
>> To: Mike Stump <mrs@windriver.com>
>> From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@codesourcery.com>
>> Date: 13 Jun 2000 03:06:39 +0200

>> Even in 5 years, I'm not sure C++ will incorporate long long; and I
>> can wait too :-)

>I am.  No need to wait though.

>> I think -ansi -pedantic should check for the language rules as
>> currently defined.

>Gosh, I'm so used to developing Standards and tracking Standards in
>progress that I'd disagree.  I don't see a good reason to not track
>Standards, when we are reasonably sure we know the direction they are
>going in.  (No user burn.)

>People that want older Standards, can always ask for them, if you want
>to support that.

I believe that Gaby is quite used to tracking the C++ standard.
If he believes that C++ might not have `long long' after the next revision,
he might have good reason to do so.  

After all, he's part of the committee.

I know that the C++ committee had some harsh words about C99, I don't quite
remember the details, but C99 did break a few compatibilities routes for C++.

And I'm not too sure the next revision of the C++ standard will want to catch
up.