On Thu, 12 Jan 2017, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> 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.
That's an interesting idea. _Literal (type) value might be alternative
syntax (a cast to be evaulated as literal). I'll give it a shot.
> > 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.
I see.
Thanks,
Richard.
