Eh, nevermind, for C++ it will be more complicated since C99 isn't in C++ yet. I will just use a long constant for now :\
Thanks On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Dean McNamee <de...@chromium.org> wrote: > We're hitting a problem with 64-bit, where we can't create long long > literals (like 4LL). We can get away with just doing a long literal > on 64-bit, but it means we can't make a 64-bit literal on 32-bit. We > don't actually need that case just now. > > However, it brings up a point. We're using C99 a bunch already, by > using C99 headers (stdint.h) and types (int32_t, etc). But we're > telling the compiler we want c98. > > It seems that despite being able to work around our specific 64-bit > literal constant issue for now, it would make sense to pass std=c99 to > the GCC build. This might make us a little more lax on some rules > (since we can now use some stuff from C99), but I don't see the big > deal. This is where C++ is progressing, and I don't see an advantage > to sticking to an old standard, since we already use plenty of things > that will require a fairly modern compiler. > > Any thoughts? > > Thanks > - dean > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ v8-dev mailing list v8-dev@googlegroups.com http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
