On 8/21/06 6:58 AM, "Ralf Wildenhues" wrote:
> * Ralph H Castain wrote on Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 02:39:51PM CEST:
>>
>> It sounds, therefore, like we are now C99 compliant and no longer C90
>> compliant at all?
>
> Well, a compiler supporting C90 plus 'long long' as an extension would
> still
* Ralph H Castain wrote on Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 02:39:51PM CEST:
>
> It sounds, therefore, like we are now C99 compliant and no longer C90
> compliant at all?
Well, a compiler supporting C90 plus 'long long' as an extension would
still be ok. Surely, that's not "strictly C90". But from glancing
On 8/21/06 1:14 AM, "Ralf Wildenhues" wrote:
>
>> Perhaps we should use int64_t instead.
>
> No, that would not help: int64_t is C99, so it should not be declared
> either in C89 mode. Also, the int64_t is required to have 64 bits, and
> could thus theoretically be smaller than 'long long'
On 19/08/06, Adrian Knoth wrote:
> Compiling a file with the gcc options -Wall and -pedantic gives the
> following warning:
> mpi.h:147: warning: ISO C90 does not support 'long long'
> Is this intentional, or is this a bug?
If you do not insist on using C90, you may compile with -std=c99
to get
Hello Adrian, Jonathan,
* Adrian Knoth wrote on Sat, Aug 19, 2006 at 08:38:15PM CEST:
> On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 11:48:44PM +0100, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
>
> > Compiling a file with the gcc options -Wall and -pedantic gives the
> > following warning:
> > mpi.h:147: warning: ISO C90 does not su
On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 11:48:44PM +0100, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
> Hi,
Hi!
> Compiling a file with the gcc options -Wall and -pedantic gives the
> following warning:
> mpi.h:147: warning: ISO C90 does not support 'long long'
> Is this intentional, or is this a bug?
If you do not insist on us
