On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 10:59:19AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Apr 2014, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 09:20:50PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> > > > PR tree-optimization/60930
> > > > * gcc.dg/torture/pr60930.c: New test.
> > > Doesn't the test depend on long long being at least 64 bits?
> >
> > But that is guaranteed by C99, isn't it?
>
> But the testcase isn't built with -std=c99.
It could, but it really doesn't matter. For C89 we provide long long
as an extension on all targets, and I'm not aware of any target supported by
GCC where long long type precision would be different between C89 and C99
mode, that would be an ABI nightmare.
AVR has a non-default -mint8 option that makes it C incompatible (e.g. 8-bit
int, 16-bit long and 32-bit long long), but I guess nobody sane would try to
run the full gcc testsuite with that option, that would break 50% of tests
at least.
I think we have plenty of testcases which just assume long long is at least
64-bit.
Jakub
