On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 03:35:30PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > Le 26/04/2022 ?? 14:58, Pavel Sanda a écrit : > >On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 02:28:08PM +0200, Pavel Sanda wrote: > >>>I read somewhere that 64 bit for long long was a 'should' and not a 'must'. > > > >There is subtlety here, which might be the source of confusion. The standard > >does not tell you > >long long needs to be *implemented* by 64bits. It just tells you to contain > >the range of 2^64. > >So standard does not prohibit you to write compiler which uses 65 bits for > >long long. > > And if I understand correctly, C++11 tells you that 'long long' has to > exist, which was not the case before if I am not mistaken.
Yes, 1998 version of C++ Standard does not know long long, while C++11 knows it and introduces <climits> with LLONG_MAX, but leaving the definition on Standard C library header <limits.h>. Pavel -- lyx-devel mailing list lyx-devel@lists.lyx.org http://lists.lyx.org/mailman/listinfo/lyx-devel
