Omar Torres wrote: > Hi Andrew, > Looks like Paul did submitted a patch here: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20675 > > Can you or someone else take a look and comment on it?
Oh my goodness, that is a huge patch. It's also incorrect, as far as I can see: LONG_LONG_TYPE_SIZE is never less than 64 bits, so this test always returns true. There's a discussion in Section 6.2.5. of the rationale in C99 that explains why long long is defined to be this way. Andrew.
