------- Comment #3 from truedfx at gentoo dot org  2010-04-05 12:54 -------
(In reply to comment #2)
> §6.4.4.1 Integer constants:
> 
> If an integer constant cannot be represented by any type in its list, it may
> have an extended integer type, if the extended integer type can represent its
> value. If all of the types in the list for the constant are signed, the
> extended integer type shall be signed.
> 
> Thus 9223372036854775808LL will be of some signed extended type, since it does
> not fit in long long.

It *may* have an extended integer type. If it doesn't (and it doesn't: gcc
doesn't have any of the standard's extended integer types, see
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.4.3/gcc/Integers-implementation.html), such
a constant is simply invalid, and gcc, after reporting that, is free to make
the code behave however it likes. At least, as far as the standard is
concerned.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43633