Re: Is 'long unsigned long' compliant to standard?

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

To: Zuxy Meng <zuxy.meng@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Is 'long unsigned long' compliant to standard?
From: Tom St Denis <tstdenis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 08:31:56 -0500
Cc: gcc-help@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <fn4qrk$ge6$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <fn4qrk$ge6$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20071022)

Zuxy Meng wrote:

Hi Gurus,

GCC accepts it without any warning, but could anybody confirm it's guaranteed to work on any compliant compiler?

I don't know what C99 says, but why not just use the standard "unsignedlong long" since it's easier to read and guaranteed to be accepted byany C99 compiler and most C89 compilers too.

Tom

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Is 'long unsigned long' compliant to standard?
  - From: Zuxy Meng

References:
- Is 'long unsigned long' compliant to standard?
  - From: Zuxy Meng

Prev by Date: Is 'long unsigned long' compliant to standard?
Next by Date: Re: Is 'long unsigned long' compliant to standard?
Previous by thread: Is 'long unsigned long' compliant to standard?
Next by thread: Re: Is 'long unsigned long' compliant to standard?
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