On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 10:52:23AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > I'll give the (short) 1 parsing a try though to see how awkward it
> > really gets.
>
> Ok, doesn't look a good way to go. Apart from making it difficult
> to handle in the parser you can't distinguish a conversion from an
> integer literal and a short literal for
>
> short s;
> s_1 = (short) 1;
As there are tons of types the integer literals can have, wouldn't it be
better to just introduce _Literal <type, value> where you could supply
the type if it is not one where C provides a suffix for it or int?
Then we could avoid adding lots of suffixes for new and newer types.
Of course for integer literals with int, unsigned int, {,unsigned} long {,long}
one would still use no suffix, U, {,U}L{,L} suffixes.
> It looks like we currently have no way to write __int128 literals in C?
>
> __int128 x = 0xffffeeeeffffeeeeffffeeeeffffeeee;
Yeah, one typically has to use
__int128 x = (((unsigned __int128) 0xffffeeeeffffeeeeULL) << 64) |
0xffffeeeeffffeeeeULL;
or something similar.
Jakub
