gcc 3.3: long long bug?

[Lev Assinovsky]

#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
const long long n = 34359738368LL; // 2^35
 
int main()
{
    cout << "Printed:" << n << endl;
}

Printed:34359738368

----
Lev Assinovsky
Aelita Software Corporation
O&S Core Division, Programmer
ICQ# 165072909


> -----Original Message-----
> From: A.R. Ashok Kumar [mailto:ashokar@sankhya.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 5:26 PM
> To: Lev Assinovsky
> Cc: John Love-Jensen; Andreas Schwab; Eric Botcazou;
> gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org; gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: RE: gcc 3.3: long long bug?
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> > I think gcc 3.2 (which didn't give me any errors)
> > behaves more properly, automatically converting 
> > rvalue to lvalue. Such behavior also solves
> > "long long long ..." problems.
> 
>   Have you obtained correct result? 
> 
>   For me, the following program gives wrong result(using gcc 2.7.2 on
>   sparc-sun-solaris2.3).
> 
> ------
> const long long n = 34359738368LL;
> int  main() {
>         printf("%ld\n", n);
> }
> ------
> 
>  Obtained Result: 8
>  Expected Result: 34359738368
> 
> - AshokA-
> 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: John Love-Jensen [mailto:eljay@adobe.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 5:01 PM
> > > To: Andreas Schwab; Eric Botcazou
> > > Cc: Lev Assinovsky; gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org; gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org
> > > Subject: Re: gcc 3.3: long long bug?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Hi Andreas,
> > > 
> > > > |> Append "LL" to the constant.
> > > > 
> > > > That should not be needed.
> > > 
> > > The "LL" should be needed, unless a "long long" is the 
> same size as a
> > > "long".
> > > 
> > > The "long long" data type is an extension to the C (ISO 9989) 
> > > and C++ (ISO
> > > 14882) specs.  As such, automatically sizing a numeric 
> > > literal to "long
> > > long" (like how a numeric literal that's too big for an "int" 
> > > becomes an
> > > "unsigned int", and then a "long" and then an "unsigned 
> > > long") could cause
> > > problems.
> > > 
> > > Unfortunately, requiring the "LL" suffix causes other headaches.
> > > 
> > > I wonder when we'll have "long long long" (128-bit) and "long 
> > > long long
> > > long" (256-bit) numbers.  With accompanying "LLL" and 
> "LLLL" suffixes.
> > > *sigh*
> > > 
> > > --Eljay
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
>