From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4774 invoked by alias); 6 Feb 2003 00:06:00 -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 4747 invoked by uid 71); 6 Feb 2003 00:06:00 -0000 Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 00:06:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030206000600.4746.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: aj@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Falk Hueffner Subject: Re: c/9569: 8 bytes seems to long for long long int Reply-To: Falk Hueffner X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00278.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR c/9569; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Falk Hueffner To: "Joseph S. Myers" Cc: Neil Booth , , , , Subject: Re: c/9569: 8 bytes seems to long for long long int Date: 06 Feb 2003 00:59:37 +0100 "Joseph S. Myers" writes: > On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, Neil Booth wrote: > > > Could you justify that, or re-open the bug report? > > Note that the bug report is actually a C++ bug report in the wrong > category, and C++ doesn't have long long, and in the C++ compiler > pedwarns (those that are enabled by default) are errors by default. I still don't get it. In C99, this is perfectly legal code, and does what the reporter wants. It is of course documented nowhere, but I would assume that g++ inherits C99's long long semantics if long long is enabled. Why not this part? -- Falk