From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9805 invoked by alias); 7 Oct 2002 12:06:01 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 9790 invoked by uid 71); 7 Oct 2002 12:06:01 -0000 Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 05:06:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20021007120601.9789.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Richard Henderson Subject: Re: preprocessor/8139: Bad new INT64_C macro Reply-To: Richard Henderson X-SW-Source: 2002-10/txt/msg00252.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR preprocessor/8139; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Richard Henderson To: Neil Booth Cc: Philippe RIBET , gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: preprocessor/8139: Bad new INT64_C macro Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 04:57:15 -0700 On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 11:17:48AM +0100, Neil Booth wrote: > But what is defining this macro? GCC, or your system? Gcc does not provide ; glibc does. > I don't think it really matters, though. It does, because... > Remember that with the new macro the token does not have L or LL > appended, and therefore has type int (before promotions) in an > arithmetic expression. This is what is causing the warning - > the integer is too big. ... the whole point of this excercise is to get proper typing of these constants. If "int" is 64-bit, for instance, then you most certainly do not want L or LL appended. It's a glibc bug. r~