Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!apple!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!bloom-picayune.mit.edu!athena.mit.edu!jfc
From: jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: 64 bit architectures and C/C++
Message-ID: <1991May2.033545.15051@athena.mit.edu>
Date: 2 May 91 03:35:45 GMT
References: <168@shasta.Stanford.EDU> <13229@goofy.Apple.COM> <16023@smoke.brl.mil>
Sender: news@athena.mit.edu (News system)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lines: 13

In article <16023@smoke.brl.mil> gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) writes:
>Note that a standard-conforming implementation is obliged to diagnose
>use of any construct such as "long long".  Therefore that is a stupid
>extension.

I disagree.  I want a compiler that supports ANSI features, but I would
rather have "long long" cause the compiler to generate 64 bit code than
cause the compiler to say "error: invalid type".  I think the C standard is
valuable because it is a list of what is valid C, not because it also says
what is not valid C.

--
    John Carr (jfc@athena.mit.edu)