> On 20 Mar 2025, at 19:28, Robert Dubner wrote:
>
> Although I am confused about how _int64_t can be anything but a 64-bit
> signed integer, and because it is my understanding that long and long long
> really *do* change from platform to platform,
32b Darwin/macOS had 64b integers as “long l
On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 15:41 Iain Sandoe wrote:
>
>
> > On 20 Mar 2025, at 19:28, Robert Dubner wrote:
> >
> > Although I am confused about how _int64_t can be anything but a 64-bit
> > signed integer, and because it is my understanding that long and long
> long
> > really *do* change from plat
check-cobol" on x86_64.
So: LGTM
> -Original Message-
> From: Iain Sandoe
> Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2025 08:15
> To: rdub...@symas.com; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: [PATCH] cobol: Do not overload int64_t, overload long and long
> long.
>
> Tested on
Tested on x86_64 linux/darwin, aarch64 linux, OK for trunk?
thanks
Iain
--- 8< ---
Since the type that is used for int64_t varies between platforms trying
to overload it creates ambiguous or conflicting overloads. Therefore,
just overload 'long' and 'long long'.
gcc/cobol/ChangeLog:
*
