From:	Martin Stromberg <eplmst AT epl DOT ericsson DOT se>
Message-Id:	<200211031555.QAA14179@lws256.lu.erisoft.se>
Subject:	Re: LIBC 2.04 new function atoll() and STDLIB long long changes
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date:	Sun, 3 Nov 2002 16:55:42 +0100 (MET)
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1021103161538.27370A-100000@is> from "Eli Zaretskii" at Nov 03, 2002 04:17:02 PM
X-Mailer:	ELM [version 2.5 PL3]
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

Eli said:
> On Sun, 3 Nov 2002, Martin Stromberg wrote:
> 
> > > The additions of "int" to the prototypes looks gratuitous to me: the two 
> > > variants are strictly equivalent AFAIK.
> > > 
> > > Any reasons why we should do this?
> > 
> > Because the standard says so?
> 
> We already comply with the standard, since "long" and "long int" are the 
> same.

We are compatible. But I'm not sure that we comply because that
standard says it should be declared/defined like this. We don't
declare/define it like this.

But I don't care enough to push it. As you say, it works
anyway. Plus there might be some sentence that says that equivalent
declarations is ok too somewhere.


Right,

						MartinS

- Raw text -