using long long

[jithoosin]

Hi,
Why is the code not getting compiled ? I am using SuSe linux. Is
it becuase of that ?

#include<stdio.h>
int main()
{
long long i;
i = LL 9876543219;
printf("%ld\n", i);
}
Error message is

longLong.cpp:6: error: integer constant is too large for "long" type
longLong.cpp:6: error: `LL' undeclared (first use this function)
longLong.cpp:6: error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only
once for
each function it appears in.)
longLong.cpp:6: error: syntax error before numeric constant

Thanks in advance
Kiran.

[Clark S. Cox III]

jithoosin wrote:

Hi,
Why is the code not getting compiled ? I am using SuSe linux. Is
it becuase of that ?

#include<stdio.h>
int main()
{
long long i;
i = LL 9876543219;

The 'LL' goes *after* the number:

i = 9876543219LL;

printf("%ld\n", i);
}

These error messages (and the ".cpp" suffix of your files) suggest to me
that you're compiling this code as C++, not C. Be aware that they are
two different languages, and have different rules (for instance, 'long
long' is not yet a standard type in C++, which is why C++ warns you
about values that are too large for 'long').

Error message is

longLong.cpp:6: error: integer constant is too large for "long" type
longLong.cpp:6: error: `LL' undeclared (first use this function)
longLong.cpp:6: error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only
once for
each function it appears in.)
longLong.cpp:6: error: syntax error before numeric constant

Thanks in advance
Kiran.

--
Clark S. Cox III
cl*******@gmail.com

[Richard Heathfield]

jithoosin said:

Hi,
Why is the code not getting compiled ? I am using SuSe linux. Is
it becuase of that ?

No, it's because you used LL 9876543219 instead of 9876543219LL in your
assignment to i. Your code also has other problems - particularly the
incorrect format specifier for long long int in your printf call.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)

[Richard Heathfield]

Clark S. Cox III said:

These error messages (and the ".cpp" suffix of your files) suggest to me
that you're compiling this code as C++, not C.

Ah, nice spot (which I overlooked completely). He'll want to change that to
a .c suffix, methinks.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)

[jithoosin]

Hi,
Thanks, that worked. But i still wants i have one more
doubt.What should be the format specifier in printf ?

Thanks
Kiran.

Richard Heathfield wrote:

jithoosin said:

Hi,
Why is the code not getting compiled ? I am using SuSe linux. Is
it becuase of that ?

No, it's because you used LL 9876543219 instead of 9876543219LL in your
assignment to i. Your code also has other problems - particularly the
incorrect format specifier for long long int in your printf call.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)

[CBFalconer]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Clark S. Cox III said:

>These error messages (and the ".cpp" suffix of your files) suggest
to me that you're compiling this code as C++, not C.

Ah, nice spot (which I overlooked completely). He'll want to change
that to a .c suffix, methinks.

And ensure that he is using a C99 compiler.

--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>

[Richard Heathfield]

CBFalconer said:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

>Clark S. Cox III said:

>>These error messages (and the ".cpp" suffix of your files) suggest
to me that you're compiling this code as C++, not C.

Ah, nice spot (which I overlooked completely). He'll want to change
that to a .c suffix, methinks.

And ensure that he is using a C99 compiler.

That could be tricky. Or expensive. One of those.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)

[Richard Heathfield]

jithoosin said:

Hi,
Thanks, that worked. But i still wants i have one more
doubt.What should be the format specifier in printf ?

The format specifier for what? printf supports many format specifiers.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)

[Jordan Abel]

2006-11-06 <bu********************@bt.com>,
Richard Heathfield wrote:

jithoosin said:

>Hi,
Thanks, that worked. But i still wants i have one more
doubt.What should be the format specifier in printf ?

The format specifier for what? printf supports many format specifiers.

In this case, the one he's looking for is %lld - which no-one pointed
out he should have been using instead of %ld in the original code.

[Richard Heathfield]

Jordan Abel said:

2006-11-06 <bu********************@bt.com>,
Richard Heathfield wrote:

>jithoosin said:

>>Hi,
Thanks, that worked. But i still wants i have one more
doubt.What should be the format specifier in printf ?

The format specifier for what? printf supports many format specifiers.

In this case, the one he's looking for is %lld - which no-one pointed
out he should have been using instead of %ld in the original code.

Ah, thanks for the reminder. He didn't include sufficient context above his
question for me to recall the thread. Now that you remind me, however, I am
also reminded that I did in fact point out to him that he was using the
wrong format specifier.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)

[Jordan Abel]

2006-11-06 <oK******************************@bt.com>,
Richard Heathfield wrote:

Jordan Abel said:

>2006-11-06 <bu********************@bt.com>,
Richard Heathfield wrote:

>>jithoosin said:

Hi,
Thanks, that worked. But i still wants i have one more
doubt.What should be the format specifier in printf ?

The format specifier for what? printf supports many format specifiers.

In this case, the one he's looking for is %lld - which no-one pointed
out he should have been using instead of %ld in the original code.

Ah, thanks for the reminder. He didn't include sufficient context above his
question for me to recall the thread. Now that you remind me, however, I am
also reminded that I did in fact point out to him that he was using the
wrong format specifier.

Yes, which he quoted when he asked which one he should be using (which
you didn't say)

Probably it was the top-posting that threw you off.

[Richard Heathfield]

Jordan Abel said:

<snip>

Probably it was the top-posting that threw you off.

Ah, that would be it. I wonder why he did that. Oh well - he'll learn, I
guess.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)

[jithoosin]

Hi all,
Thanks a lot for all these help. I more doubt. What is top
posting and am i the one who did that ?

tHANKS
kIRAN

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Jordan Abel said:

<snip>

Probably it was the top-posting that threw you off.

Ah, that would be it. I wonder why he did that. Oh well - he'll learn, I
guess.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)

[Jordan Abel]

2006-11-06 <11**********************@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups .com>,
jithoosin wrote:

What is top posting and am i the one who did that ?

Top-posting is when you place your original text at the top of the
message above the text you're responding to. You should be replying at
the bottom.

[CBFalconer]

jithoosin wrote:

>
Thanks a lot for all these help. I more doubt. What is top
posting and am i the one who did that ?

You did it again. Your answer belongs after, or possibly
intermixed with, the snipped material you quote. The snipping
removes anything not germane to your reply. See the following
links:

--
Some informative links:
<news:news.announce.newusers
<http://www.geocities.com/nnqweb/>
<http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html>
<http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html>
<http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html>
<http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/>

[Peter Nilsson]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

CBFalconer said:

And ensure that he is using a C99 compiler.

That could be tricky. Or expensive. One of those.

Indeed. It could take minutes to find a free compiler that supports
long long as per
C99. And probably a further 20 to download and install it. Oh the
humanity.

--
Peter

[Richard Heathfield]

Peter Nilsson said:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

>CBFalconer said:

And ensure that he is using a C99 compiler.

That could be tricky. Or expensive. One of those.

Indeed. It could take minutes to find a free compiler that supports
long long as per C99.

Oh, if you *only* want long long support, that's no big deal - provided
you're prepared to forego conforming mode. But an actual conforming C99
compiler, available for free? I Don't Think So (tm).

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)

[Ian Collins]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Peter Nilsson said:

>>Richard Heathfield wrote:

>>>CBFalconer said:

And ensure that he is using a C99 compiler.

That could be tricky. Or expensive. One of those.

Indeed. It could take minutes to find a free compiler that supports
long long as per C99.

Oh, if you *only* want long long support, that's no big deal - provided
you're prepared to forego conforming mode. But an actual conforming C99
compiler, available for free? I Don't Think So (tm).

Sun's compiler is close and getting closer with each release. Not there
yet, but it will be.

--
Ian Collins.