gcc 3.3: long long bug?

[Andreas Schwab]

John Love-Jensen <eljay@adobe.com> writes:

|> 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".

ITYM unless LONG_MAX >= 2^35.

|> 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.

C99 already specifies the needed rules to make LL unnecessary.  You are
right in that long long does not exist in Standard C++, but IMHO the
default for GNU C++ should be consistent with GNU C.

|> 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*

You can probably find big threads about that subject in the comp.std.c
archives.

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, schwab@suse.de
SuSE Linux AG, Deutschherrnstr. 15-19, D-90429 Nürnberg
Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."