Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 08:09:34 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Andrew Cottrell <acottrel AT ihug DOT com DOT au>
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: LIBC 2.04 new function atoll() and STDLIB long long changes
In-Reply-To: <001201c282f0$7267c380$0100a8c0@p4>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1021103080819.22669D@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
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
Precedence: bulk


On Sun, 3 Nov 2002, Andrew Cottrell wrote:

> This is try #2 for atoll() as the C99 standard has the definition 'long long
> int' not 'long long' and now includes other changes for C99 'long long int'
> defintions.

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?