On Jun 19, 2008, at 12:22 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 11:56:43AM -0700, James Chacon wrote:Isn't that wrong then for 64bit machines where int is 32 and the spec says"signed long" is what should be used here?The wording of the standard means that you can support more, but don't have to. It is valid to use multi-precision math for example.
Umm...it doesn't say "signed long as defined on a 32bit machine", it just says signed long.
That implies to me on a given architecture you must support a signed long size here which would mean on LP64 chopping it at max int is incorrect.
James