Although I am confused about how _int64_t can be anything but a 64-bit
signed integer, and because it is my understanding that long and long long
really *do* change from platform to platform, I am loathe to stand in the
way of your MacOS progress.
It passes my full set of tests, and "make check-cobol" on x86_64.
So: LGTM
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Iain Sandoe <iains....@gmail.com>
> Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2025 08:15
> To: rdub...@symas.com; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: [PATCH] cobol: Do not overload int64_t, overload long and long
> long.
>
> Tested on x86_64 linux/darwin, aarch64 linux, OK for trunk?
> thanks
> Iain
>
> --- 8< ---
>
> Since the type that is used for int64_t varies between platforms trying
> to overload it creates ambiguous or conflicting overloads. Therefore,
> just overload 'long' and 'long long'.
>
> gcc/cobol/ChangeLog:
>
> * cdfval.h (struct cdfval_t): Overload long instead of int64_t.
>
> Signed-off-by: Iain Sandoe <i...@sandoe.co.uk>
> ---
> gcc/cobol/cdfval.h | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/gcc/cobol/cdfval.h b/gcc/cobol/cdfval.h
> index 1453f2af5f8..4682db8074b 100644
> --- a/gcc/cobol/cdfval.h
> +++ b/gcc/cobol/cdfval.h
> @@ -79,7 +79,7 @@ struct cdfval_t : public cdfval_base_t {
> cdfval_base_t::string = NULL;
> cdfval_base_t::number = value;
> }
> - cdfval_t( int64_t value )
> + cdfval_t( long value )
> : lineno(yylineno), filename(cobol_filename())
> {
> cdfval_base_t::off = false;
> --
> 2.39.2 (Apple Git-143)
