Is 'long unsigned long' compliant to standard?

[Scott Moore]

No, you have me there. However, (to the original question),
the order of appearance of the items should not matter. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom St Denis [mailto:tstdenis@ellipticsemi.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 11:26 AM
To: Scott Moore
Cc: Zuxy Meng; gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Is 'long unsigned long' compliant to standard?

Scott Moore wrote:
> long and unsigned are type-specifiers. They are accepted in a looping 
> syntax such as declaration-specifiers (see the C grammar). Specifying 
> long twice is simply redundant, and has no effect on the final type.
>   

you mean "unsigned long" and "unsigned long long" are the same?

Or you mean that "long unsigned long " and "unsigned long" are the same?

Tom

---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.762 / Virus Database: 510 - Release Date: 9/13/2004
 

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.762 / Virus Database: 510 - Release Date: 9/13/2004