Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 10:07:57 +0200 Message-Id: <199910010807.KAA16478@henkell.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder To: khan AT thor DOT xraylith DOT wisc DOT edu CC: cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com In-reply-to: <199909301705.MAA10463@mercury.xraylith.wisc.edu> (message from Mumit Khan on Thu, 30 Sep 1999 12:05:36 -0500) Subject: Re: strtoll() and strtoull() References: <199909301705 DOT MAA10463 AT mercury DOT xraylith DOT wisc DOT edu> >>>>> Mumit Khan writes: Mumit> If you do mean strtoll/strtoull (ie., *two* l's at the end), Mumit> these are not in any standard I know of. If the two 'l's at the Mumit> end refer to the long long version, those are non-standard and Mumit> newlib doesn't implement it. Newlib maintainers will accept Mumit> patches of course. Of course, I mean strtoll/strtoull. And they are at least very close to standard. Besides that, they make a whole lot of sense since the gcc supports long long and friends. Anyway, is it legal to simply copy the implementation of strtoll() and strtoull() from glibc? Or do you have to implement it from scratch for some reason? /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Technical University Braunschweig Dept. Operating Systems & Computer Networks Phone: +49 531 391 3289 Bueltenweg 74/75, 38106 Braunschweig, Germany Fax: +49 531 391 5936 -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com