Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 16:17:02 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: LIBC 2.04 new function atoll() and STDLIB long long changes
In-Reply-To: <200211031408.PAA14131@lws256.lu.erisoft.se>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1021103161538.27370A-100000@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, 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.

I'm generally against changes that don't change anything in semantics.  
It's like whitespace changes.