Your message dated Wed, 30 Jun 2004 12:52:27 +0900
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line int64_t: "long long int" or "long int", which one is it?
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 16 Jan 2002 12:51:41 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Jan 16 06:51:41 2002
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from (bortas.appeal.se) [195.22.77.29]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 16QpXY-0002fU-00; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 06:51:41 -0600
Received: from one.appeal.se (one.appeal.se [192.168.1.62])
by bortas.appeal.se (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id g0GCp9n15000;
Wed, 16 Jan 2002 13:51:09 +0100
Received: from johan by one.appeal.se with local (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian))
id 16QpSh-0006m3-00; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 13:46:39 +0100
From: Johan Walles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: int64_t: "long long int" or "long int", which one is it?
X-Reportbug-Version: 1.41.14213
X-Mailer: reportbug 1.41.14213
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 13:46:39 +0100
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sender: Johan Walles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Package: libc6.1-dev
Version: 2.2.4-7
Severity: normal
int64_t is defined as follows on 64 bit platforms:
in <stdint.h>: typedef long int int64_t;
in <sys/types.h>: __extension__ typedef long long int int64_t;
I guess both types are of equal size, but it is annoying because gcc
warns differently about printf() format strings depending on which one
is used.
I would appreciate if one could be decided upon and used in both
places.
-- System Information
Debian Release: 3.0
Architecture: ia64
Kernel: Linux one 2.4.7-ia64 #1 Tue Aug 7 21:03:33 MDT 2001 ia64
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C
Versions of packages libc6.1-dev depends on:
ii libc6.1 2.2.4-7 GNU C Library: Shared libraries an
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 129500-done) by bugs.debian.org; 30 Jun 2004 03:52:28 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Jun 29 20:52:28 2004
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from omega.webmasters.gr.jp (webmasters.gr.jp) [218.44.239.78]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1BfW96-0006LE-00; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 20:52:28 -0700
Received: from omega.webmasters.gr.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by webmasters.gr.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45DF6DEB58
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 12:52:27 +0900 (JST)
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 12:52:27 +0900
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: GOTO Masanori <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: int64_t: "long long int" or "long int", which one is it?
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.9.9 (Unchained Melody) SEMI/1.14.3 (Ushinoya)
FLIM/1.14.3 (=?ISO-8859-4?Q?Unebigory=F2mae?=) APEL/10.3 Emacs/21.2
(i386-debian-linux-gnu) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.3 - "Ushinoya")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no
version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25
X-Spam-Level:
> Package: libc6.1-dev
> Version: 2.2.4-7
> Severity: normal
>
> int64_t is defined as follows on 64 bit platforms:
>
> in <stdint.h>: typedef long int int64_t;
> in <sys/types.h>: __extension__ typedef long long int int64_t;
>
> I guess both types are of equal size, but it is annoying because gcc
> warns differently about printf() format strings depending on which one
> is used.
>
> I would appreciate if one could be decided upon and used in both
> places.
sys/types.h declaration is internal of:
#if !__GNUC_PREREQ (2, 7)
It means you use gcc < 2.7. I think this declaration should be
depreciated. These days we use at least gcc 2.7, and later.
> I vote for:
>
> typedef long int int64_t;
>
> Reason: On gcc/linux/ia64, size_t is a long int. Having int64_t and
> size_t resolve to the same type would simplify my printf():ing.
Yes, nowadays ILP32 and LP64 is the mainstream. So size_t is a long
int on 64 bit architecture.
Debian/woody and sarge does not support gcc < 2.7. So it should not
cause any problems. I close this bug.
Regards,
-- gotom
