Paul Mensonides wrote:
Supporting [extended length integers] is not a good idea. IMO, it is just the beginning of non-standard extensions. For the purpose of cross-compiling, I don't have a problem with an option to specify the width.
But what about cross compiling from a 32-bit platform for a 64-bit target? (which strikes me as a perfectly reasonable thing to do today).
It is reasonable. I'm not against being able to explicitly set the width with some sort of option--as long as it is explicit. What I'm basically saying is that once the option is set, the preprocessor should do everything at exactly that width (*as if* the width was the widest supported integral type for the platform--which is required by the standard) and reject anything that requires more. If the width isn't the width of the actual target, then the user is lying--which gives them an explicit way-out hack if absolutely necessary.
That was exactly, what I had in mind. Regards Hartmut