patrick.pelissier at gmail.com
Tue Jul 31 09:22:05 CEST 2012
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 10:53 PM, Niels Möller <nisse at lysator.liu.se> wrote:
> Torbjorn Granlund <tg at gmplib.org> writes:
>> We could perhaps add a parallel set of functions (_ul, or _ull) allowing
>> long long. We should then follow the principle of "one GMP release, one
>> GMP API" and reject compilers and ABIs without long long support.
> I don't see much harm in making those long long features conditional on
> some configure test. If a program attempts to use those feature and is
> compiled with a compiler which doesn't support long long, then it's
> going to fail anyway, for other reasons than gmp.
Why not intmax_t / uintmax_t instead of long long / unsigned long long?
More information about the gmp-devel