Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!uunet!stanford.edu!shap@shasta.Stanford.EDU
From: shap@shasta.Stanford.EDU (shap)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: 64 bit architectures and C/C++
Message-ID: <180@shasta.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 3 May 91 03:21:11 GMT
References: <13229@goofy.Apple.COM> <16023@smoke.brl.mil> <1991May2.033545.15051@athena.mit.edu>
Organization: Stanford University Computer Systems Laboratory
Lines: 28

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"...
>
>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.

Fortunately, you aren't the standard.

The standard is very precise.  It does not require that the use of an
extension be an error.  It does REQUIRE that the compiler issue a
diagnostic.  Something like

	file.c: 64: Thanks for using long long!

Would conform.

Credit for the example to Dave Prosser of AT&T.


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