On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 04:38:27PM +0530, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> On 12 January 2017 at 16:15, Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> wrote:
> > On Thu, 12 Jan 2017, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 10:52:23AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> > > I'll give the (short) 1 parsing a try though to see how awkward it
> >> > > really gets.
> >> >
> >> > Ok, doesn't look a good way to go. Apart from making it difficult
> >> > to handle in the parser you can't distinguish a conversion from an
> >> > integer literal and a short literal for
> >> >
> >> > short s;
> >> > s_1 = (short) 1;
> >>
> >> As there are tons of types the integer literals can have, wouldn't it be
> >> better to just introduce _Literal <type, value> where you could supply
> >> the type if it is not one where C provides a suffix for it or int?
> >> Then we could avoid adding lots of suffixes for new and newer types.
> >> Of course for integer literals with int, unsigned int, {,unsigned} long
> >> {,long}
> >> one would still use no suffix, U, {,U}L{,L} suffixes.
> >
> > That's an interesting idea. _Literal (type) value might be alternative
> > syntax (a cast to be evaulated as literal). I'll give it a shot.
> Um, how about just type(value) ?
> s_1 = short (10);
> AFAIU this isn't legal C and could be added as an extension ?
Even C++ doesn't allow this syntax if the type isn't a single token.
So you can't use unsigned __int128 (5) or unsigned char (7) or signed char (-5).
Jakub
