On Thu, 12 Jan 2017, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 04:38:27PM +0530, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> > On 12 January 2017 at 16:15, Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> wrote:
> > > On Thu, 12 Jan 2017, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 10:52:23AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > >> > > I'll give the (short) 1 parsing a try though to see how awkward it
> > >> > > really gets.
> > >> >
> > >> > Ok, doesn't look a good way to go. Apart from making it difficult
> > >> > to handle in the parser you can't distinguish a conversion from an
> > >> > integer literal and a short literal for
> > >> >
> > >> > short s;
> > >> > s_1 = (short) 1;
> > >>
> > >> As there are tons of types the integer literals can have, wouldn't it be
> > >> better to just introduce _Literal <type, value> where you could supply
> > >> the type if it is not one where C provides a suffix for it or int?
> > >> Then we could avoid adding lots of suffixes for new and newer types.
> > >> Of course for integer literals with int, unsigned int, {,unsigned} long
> > >> {,long}
> > >> one would still use no suffix, U, {,U}L{,L} suffixes.
> > >
> > > That's an interesting idea. _Literal (type) value might be alternative
> > > syntax (a cast to be evaulated as literal). I'll give it a shot.
> > Um, how about just type(value) ?
> > s_1 = short (10);
> > AFAIU this isn't legal C and could be added as an extension ?
>
> Even C++ doesn't allow this syntax if the type isn't a single token.
> So you can't use unsigned __int128 (5) or unsigned char (7) or signed char
> (-5).
It also lacks expressiveness when comparing
short s;
s_1 = (short) 1;
s_2 = short (1);
IMHO having a _Literal somewhere makes it more obvious what is meant
(I'm still going to dump 1u or 1l instead of _Literal (unsigned) 1
of course as that's even more easy to recognize).
Richard.
