🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <CH10rH.7oM@sugar.NeoSoft.COM>, dweller@NeoSoft.com (David Weller) writes:
|> Sorry for the repost (if that is the case).  Somebody told me
|> I had the "Distribution" set up wrong.  Let's see if I get a better
|> response this time:
|> 
|> 
|> Apologies in advance if this is a FA(s)Q:  I'm using long long int
|> for some of my work (need to manipulate a 64bit string to do
|> some kinky stuff with doubles).  I've encountered several
|> quirky behaviours: 1) It doesn't seem to care much for simple
|> assignment (it's almost like the upper 4 bytes get dropped),

This sounds like a bug to me, send in a full report to bug-gcc with sample code
and details of the version of the compiler you are using.

|> 2) It doesn't seem to care much for standard operators (like
|> & and ^), and 

As above.

|> 3) I can't seem to find any reasonable documentation
|> on this "special" type
|> 

There is nothing particularly special about long long, it is just a larger type
than long or int, but should behave in the same way.  The only notable
difference is that with a machine-supplied (as opposed to the GNU) C library
there will probably not be any support for this type.  Most notably this will
mean that there is no way you can pass the result to printf.

|> Can anybody help this poor soul?
|> E-mail replies are welcome, but if you feel it merits public
|> humiliation..... :-)
|> 
|> 
|> -- 
|> "...accordingly, all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more 
|> disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves 
|> by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."
|> 		-- Thomas Jefferson, presciently writing on C++ in 1776