Re: long_long and ulong_long deprecated

[stefan]

On Fri, 7 Sep 2001, Rob Browning wrote:

> > That is why I considered the long_long and ulong_long typedef a good
> > thing. It would solve the problem.
> 
> Yep.  Without the typedef, you're somewhat stuck.  Also note that in
> reference to a previous comment, at least according to C9X, __int64 is
> an acceptable substitution since long long is just guaranteed >= 64
> bits.

This is why I want you to ask to reintroduce a likewise typedef or
"reverse-deprecate" the typdefs "long_long" and "ulong_long". I could
verify the changes with the MSVC. I sent previous patches to Martin
Grabmueller and Marius Vollmer containing the changes for long_long and
ulong_long.

Cheers,
        address@hidden