From: Martin Stromberg <eplmst AT epl DOT ericsson DOT se>
Message-Id: <200211031408.PAA14131@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 15:08:39 +0100 (MET)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1021103080819.22669D@is> from "Eli Zaretskii" at Nov 03, 2002 08:09:34 AM
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL3]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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

Eli said:
> 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?

Because the standard says so?


Right,

						MartinS