From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andreas Schwab <schwab@LS5.informatik.uni-dortmund.de>
To: Marc Espie <Marc.Espie@liafa.jussieu.fr>
Cc: Zack Weinberg <zack@blastula.phys.columbia.edu>, egcs@egcs.cygnus.com
Subject: Re: `quad' printf format specifier ?
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 22:53:00 -0000
Message-ID: <vyzbtj5xm9z.fsf@issan.cs.uni-dortmund.de>
References: <19990206133120.26761@liafa1.liafa.jussieu.fr> <199902061904.OAA02631@blastula.phys.columbia.edu> <19990206222305.19585@liafa1.liafa.jussieu.fr>
X-SW-Source: 1999-02n/msg00213.html
Message-ID: <19990228225300.vl--lG6uUza2j4cr9B4p7GQ8ydVC7l_r_cv-c8pInDs@z>

Marc Espie <Marc.Espie@liafa.jussieu.fr> writes:

|> I would very much like to know what's the exact status of stuff such as
|> atoq(), or printf("%qd").  Does it correspond to any current standard/draft,
|> or is it just a common extension that is supposed to work in a given way ?

The C9X standard has atoll and printf("%lld"), and generally uses the ll
suffix for long long variants of funtions.  The `q' variants are just BSD
extensions.

-- 
Andreas Schwab                                      "And now for something
schwab@issan.cs.uni-dortmund.de                      completely different"
schwab@gnu.org