On Thu, 12 Jan 2017, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > Well, we need some suffix that will not clash with C++ mandated udlits > very soon, it is already bad that i and Q suffixes are problematic. > By sN, did you mean s128 or literally sN? > I've googled around a little bit and only found comments about > 1ui64 and 1i64 suffixes, so that would mean accepting instead of l/L > i128 or I128.
i128 and I128 seem reasonable as a user-visible C extension (they could of course be mixed in any order with u, U for unsigned, and with i, I, j, J for imaginary numbers). I don't know what's appropriate for C++. -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
