>>>>> "Eric" == Eric Botcazou <ebotca...@adacore.com> writes:
>> 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. Eric> The whole compiler is written using HOST_WIDE_INT and the like, so Eric> using some external code that managed to escape a proper review Eric> before being merged in order to justify an incorrect usage is IMO Eric> short-sighted, to say the least. Not interested in trading barbs about it. Still, I'll find it in me to be partly tongue in cheek. I don't understand what the code being external, or the review, has to do with anything. This code is compiled with the same host compiler as everything else. HOST_WIDE_INT is also not very persuasive to me. We did many things in the past that became obsolete as compilers matured. You can still occasionally find workarounds for old compiler bugs in GNU source; but that doesn't make them relevant. Maybe strict adherence to C90 gives some benefit, but I don't really know what that would be. Of course, I'd rather we -- not GCC obviously, it is going another route, but the rest of the toolchain -- burn some bridges and move to C99. I think we deserve a 13 year old standard. Tom
