The African Chief wrote:

long longint {now = integer} unsigned long longword {now = word}

The problem with this one is that (at least on the common platforms), "long" is the same as "int", and I'd expect (as probably many ex-BP programmers do) LongInt to be longer than Integer. In fact, some of my programs rely on this.

long long comp {now = longint, or comp} unsigned long long compword (now = longword}

Why "Comp"? What does "Comp" mean at all? -- I really don't know, perhaps I could look it up in one of the 11 BP books... :-|

However, I don't think "Comp" is reasonable name for any integer type, except for BP compatibility ("Comp" = "compatibility type" ;-).

However, since the above will most likely break a lot of existing code, perhaps GPC should have built-in data types that mean *exactly* the same thing as they mean in GCC

Seems necessary. (I didn't like how C messed up their integer types, now we're getting the same problems... :-( -- I hope we find a good solution finally!)