> It's true that this is a pedantic violation; but the point here is that > there is no practical barrier to using 'long long'. This code has been > in the tree since 2007; so if there is some issue with it, it ought to > have surfaced by now.
The whole compiler is written using HOST_WIDE_INT and the like, so using some external code that managed to escape a proper review before being merged in order to justify an incorrect usage is IMO short-sighted, to say the least. -- Eric Botcazou
