From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20635 invoked by alias); 6 Feb 2003 07:06:00 -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 20621 invoked by uid 71); 6 Feb 2003 07:06:00 -0000 Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 07:06:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030206070600.20620.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: aj@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Neil Booth Subject: Re: c/9569: 8 bytes seems to long for long long int Reply-To: Neil Booth X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00289.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR c/9569; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Neil Booth To: "Joseph S. Myers" Cc: Falk Hueffner , aj@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, stefaandr@hotmail.com, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: c/9569: 8 bytes seems to long for long long int Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 06:59:24 +0000 Joseph S. Myers wrote:- > 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. I suggest the PR be re-opened then. Neil.