This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug c++/13358] long long and C++ do not mix well in 3.3/3.4
- From: "gdr at integrable-solutions dot net" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 8 Dec 2003 20:30:24 -0000
- Subject: [Bug c++/13358] long long and C++ do not mix well in 3.3/3.4
- References: <20031208180553.13358.lloyd@randombit.net>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
------- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2003-12-08 20:30 -------
Subject: Re: long long and C++ do not mix well in 3.3/3.4
"zack at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> writes:
| It IS a valid long long constant in C99: see the table in section
| 6.4.4.1 paragraph 5. (This is the text Lloyd already quoted in
| comment 4.)
I'm not disputing that.
| 'long long' is not part of C++98 and therefore legitimately objected
| to by -pedantic/-pedantic-errors (the latter being the default in C++).
| However, if GCC is to support it at all in C++ it should be given
| C99-compatible semantics.
Agreed.
I think I misread the pile of bugzilla traffic. I saw the followup of
the OR saying that he can't append LL because windows compiler can
accept it (prefering u64, which is non standard) and read two messages
from our "bug masters" earlier and was lead into the conlusion that,
the OR was requesting us to be bug-compatible with Windows compiler.
Which would be a nonsense to me.
-- Gaby
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13358