Re: Gforth and gcc "progress"
- From: Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@xxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 09:56:40 +0200
Andrew Haley wrote:
Sure, but as I said to Bernd I had forgotten that it was ever defined
that way. In hindsight it was surely a mistake to define it in such a
way, but that's all history now.
IMHO the definition was right, and if the Alpha people had asked RMS about
his reasoning, they probably wouldn't have changed it. It's the "ANSI C"
blinder attitude shining through here again: long long is a GCC extension,
so "it can mean whatever we like it". That's not correct, the GCC
extensions are all there for good reasons.
This is all history now, for sure, and C99 has a better way to select types
with a specific size, so GCC should support this scheme - e.g. a way to
access int128_t on all 64 bit platforms without GCC-specific attributes
would be nice to have.
--
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Gforth and gcc "progress"
- From: Andrew Haley
- Re: Gforth and gcc "progress"
- References:
- Gforth and gcc "progress"
- From: Anton Ertl
- Re: Gforth and gcc "progress"
- From: slava@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: Gforth and gcc "progress"
- From: Anton Ertl
- Re: Gforth and gcc "progress"
- From: Andrew Haley
- Re: Gforth and gcc "progress"
- From: Anton Ertl
- Re: Gforth and gcc "progress"
- From: Andrew Haley
- Re: Gforth and gcc "progress"
- From: Anton Ertl
- Re: Gforth and gcc "progress"
- From: Andrew Haley
- Gforth and gcc "progress"
- Prev by Date: Random Distribution in Forth
- Next by Date: Re: Why aren't the forth people doing this?
- Previous by thread: Re: Gforth and gcc "progress"
- Next by thread: Re: Gforth and gcc "progress"
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|