On Sat, Jan 26, 2008 at 08:33:34PM -0800, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 26, 2008 at 05:09:41PM +0000, Yar Tikhiy wrote:
> > o For things that should be at least 64 bits wide, use long long
> > and not int64_t, as the latter is an optional type.
>
> I don't follow - int64_t is an ISO-C99 type, and we have it in FreeBSD.
> Is this code expected to be taken from FreeBSD and used in some pre-C99
> system?
C99 explicitly says that any intN_t is an optional type[0]. E.g.,
a 96-bit system may choose not to provide int64_t if none of its
basic C types is 64 bits wide. fts(3) is a purely userland library
which need not depend on a particular platform[1], so I did my best
to avoid any assumptions like, `There will never be a 96-bit system
around.'
[0] In my copy of N869 Draft it's in section 7.18.1.1, paragraph 3.
[1] Unfortunately, a lot of nonportability has crept into our
implementation of it.
--
Yar
_______________________________________________
cvs-all@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
