From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6995 invoked by alias); 6 Feb 2003 00:16:01 -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 6970 invoked by uid 71); 6 Feb 2003 00:16:01 -0000 Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 00:16:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030206001601.6969.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: aj@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: "Joseph S. Myers" Subject: Re: c/9569: 8 bytes seems to long for long long int Reply-To: "Joseph S. Myers" X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00279.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR c/9569; it has been noted by GNATS. From: "Joseph S. Myers" To: Falk Hueffner Cc: Neil Booth , , , , Subject: Re: c/9569: 8 bytes seems to long for long long int Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 00:06:25 +0000 (GMT) On 6 Feb 2003, Falk Hueffner wrote: > 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? C++98 is stricter than C90 about integer constants. _Explicitly_ using long long is one thing (accepted as an extension by the C++ compiler), _implicitly_ using it (by having too large an integer constant without a suffix) is another. The behaviour may or may not be as intended; that's for the C++ maintainers to work out. -- Joseph S. Myers jsm28@cam.ac.uk