Message-ID:	<003f01c282cb$1388ce60$0100a8c0@p4>
From:	"Andrew Cottrell" <acottrel AT ihug DOT com DOT au>
To:	<djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>, "CBFalconer\"" <cbfalconer AT yahoo DOT com>
References:	<001401c28231$db1d3cd0$0100a8c0 AT p4> <6480-Sat02Nov2002110417+0200-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> <3DC3E2E5 DOT 8AA59996 AT yahoo DOT com>
Subject:	Re: LIBC 2.04 new function atoll() implementation
Date:	Sun, 3 Nov 2002 10:53:12 +1100
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Priority:	3
X-MSMail-Priority:	Normal
X-Mailer:	Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

..SNIP..
> A very minor thought - no parameter gets re-evaluated, so wouldn't
> it be simpler to just define a macro?  The routine is still needed
> in case joe-bob makes a pointer.

In the email I indicated that this was copied from atol() and as such IMHO
the quickest and consistent way is what I did as the exisitng code does not
use a macro for the atol(). I checked the FSF GLIBC 2.3.1 and it does the
same, expect for names, copyright, typecasting and layout are different.

> And why does it specify C89 compatibility, when there was no long
> long in C89?
Looks like you didn't read the code correctly. The portability line is:-
@portability !ansi-c89, ansi-c99

Notice the "!' which is not C89.......

- Raw text -