64 bit architectures and C/C++

[Phil Howard KA9WGN]

jfc at athena.mit.edu (John F Carr) writes:

>I disagree.  I want a compiler that supports ANSI features, but I would
>rather have "long long" cause the compiler to generate 64 bit code than
>cause the compiler to say "error: invalid type".  I think the C standard is
>valuable because it is a list of what is valid C, not because it also says
>what is not valid C.

I see nothing wrong with this.  You have ANSI C and you have extensions.

Of course YOUR extensions and MY extensions may not be the same, and may
even be mutually exclusive.  For each of us to ensure our code will compile
on the other's compiler, we can restrict ourselves to ANSI C.

On the other hand if we can get together and make our extensions the same,
we widen the domain in which our non-standard code that takes advantage of
these powerful features can be used.

When I am writing ANSI C, it does help to have something jump in there and
complain when I go beyond the standard.  I believe in GCC this is "-pedantic"
or something like that.
-- 
 /***************************************************************************\
/ Phil Howard -- KA9WGN -- phil at ux1.cso.uiuc.edu   |  Guns don't aim guns at  \
\ Lietuva laisva -- Brivu Latviju -- Eesti vabaks  |  people; CRIMINALS do!!  /
 \***************************************************************************/