On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 12:14:35PM +0100, Erik Trulsson wrote: > On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 11:55:29AM +0100, Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav wrote: > > > > > Userland code should be portable and useful to other systems in the > > > chosen domain of compatibility, e.g., C99 or POSIX, unless there > > > are substantial reasons for it not to. That's how different projects > > > can benefit from each other's work. > > > > Both C99 and POSIX *require* int64_t and uint64_t on all platforms that > > have 64-bit integer types. > > > > FreeBSD has never run on any platform that doesn't. I don't think > > NetBSD or OpenBSD has either, nor Solaris, nor Linux to my knowledge. > > Those are all good reasons for why using 'int64_t' would be OK. > None of it is a reason for why using 'long long' would not be OK when you > want at least 64 bits, but do not require exactly 64 bits.
Thank you for telling this very valid point. People tend to forget that [u]intN_t types are actually called for only when a particular _exact_ bit width is needed, e.g., to get unsigned arithmetics modulo 2^N, or to match a hardware register or a network packet field. -- Yar _______________________________________________ cvs-all@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
