On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 5:50 PM, Richard Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Eli Friedman <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> Author: efriedma >> Date: Mon Jul 22 19:25:18 2013 >> New Revision: 186903 >> >> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=186903&view=rev >> Log: >> Integers which are too large should be an error. > > > The "too_large_for_signed" part of this doesn't look correct. In C89, > unsuffixed integers too large to be a long are an unsigned long. In other > language standards, the same behavior is a GNU extension.
Yes, our behavior in strict C89 is wrong. That's mostly tangential to this patch, though; filed http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=16678 . Under C99 rules, yes, gcc technically accepts it by default, but it emits a warning which can't be turned off... I doubt the difference matters. -Eli _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
