Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: 64 bit architectures and C/C++
Message-ID: <1991May2.041911.14489@zoo.toronto.edu>
Date: Thu, 2 May 1991 04:19:11 GMT
References: <168@shasta.Stanford.EDU> <13229@goofy.Apple.COM> <16023@smoke.brl.mil> <1991May2.033545.15051@athena.mit.edu>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1991May2.033545.15051@athena.mit.edu> jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr) writes:
>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.

The C standard says both.  However, why do you assume that the compiler
must complain *or* generate 64-bit code?  ANSI C does not prevent it from
doing both.  The only thing the standard requires is that violations of its
constraints must draw at least one complaint.
-- 
And the bean-counter replied,           | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
"beans are more important".             |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry