long long?This issue has been automatically converted from the original issue lists and some formatting may not have been preserved.
Authors: Derek M. Jones, WG14
Date: 1992-12-10
Reference document: X3J11/91-062
Submitted against: C90
Status: Closed
Converted from: dr.htm, dr_040.html
In the constraint for subclause 6.5.2, page 59, lines 2-4: What does the C Standard mean when it says “set?”
Does it mean that the construct:
int int i;
violates a constraint?
It has been suggested that this wording was left vague to allow such constructs
as long long (which is supported by some compilers) to fall into the undefined
behavior category.
Would the Committee clarify the situation with regard to duplicate type specifiers? Do such constructs result in a constraint error or undefined behavior?
The related case static static is explicitly ruled out by the constraints in
the previous subclause.
Additionally, volatile volatile is ruled out by the constraint in subclause
6.5.3.
Comment from WG14 on 1997-09-23:
Example:
int int i;
Must this be diagnosed?
Answer: Yes. It is allowed to rearrange the order of type specifiers within a
set, but not to duplicate them (cf. subclause 6.5.2). Thus int int is a
constraint violation.