Andrew Haley wrote: > 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.
Yes, a target port which which does not support 64 bit operations could not be strictly C99 compliant, however don't see any reason to forbid such as may be desired with this understanding; as such a port would remain compliant otherwise and fully useful in this respect, and remain fully compliant with earlier standards. (So unless there is a standing requirement that the compiler source inhibit ports which may not be capable of fully complying with the latest evolving language standards; enabling such as may be desired for whatever purpose would seem reasonable, as long as it does not interfere with the ability to support fully compliant ports, and thereby be harmless).
