Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!paperboy!hsdndev!cmcl2!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: 64 bit architectures and C/C++
Message-ID: <16036@smoke.brl.mil>
Date: 2 May 91 20:08:43 GMT
References: <13229@goofy.Apple.COM> <16023@smoke.brl.mil> <1991May2.033545.15051@athena.mit.edu>
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.
Lines: 17

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

I think you missed the point.  There are numerous CONFORMING ways in
which additional integer types can be added to C.  "long long" is NOT
one of these, and a standard-conforming implementation is OBLIGED to
diagnose the use of "long long", which violates the Constraints of
X3.159-1989 section 3.5.2.  Therefore "long long" is not a wise way
to make such an extension.