RE: Help replacing ULL to eliminate pedantic error that ULL is C99

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

To: "Stephen Torri" <storri@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: Help replacing ULL to eliminate pedantic error that ULL is C99
From: "John \(Eljay\) Love-Jensen" <eljay@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 05:01:34 -0700
Cc: "MSX to GCC" <gcc-help@xxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1175805795.3581.18.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Hi Stephen,

> Is my use of a 64-bit constant valid?

If by "valid" you mean strictly ISO 14882 compliant:  no.

If by "valid" you mean a GCC extension to use "long long" to represent 64-bit integers:  yes.

Sincerely,
--Eljay

Follow-Ups:
- RE: Help replacing ULL to eliminate pedantic error that ULL is C99
  - From: Stephen Torri

References:
- Re: Help replacing ULL to eliminate pedantic error that ULL is C99
  - From: Stephen Torri

Prev by Date: Re: Force ret to be at the end of a function
Next by Date: RE: Help replacing ULL to eliminate pedantic error that ULL is C99
Previous by thread: Re: Help replacing ULL to eliminate pedantic error that ULL is C99
Next by thread: RE: Help replacing ULL to eliminate pedantic error that ULL is C99
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [Linux C Programming] [Linux Kernel] [eCos] [Fedora Development] [Fedora Announce] [Autoconf] [The DWARVES Debugging Tools] [Yosemite Campsites] [Yosemite News] [Linux GCC]

Powered by Linux