On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 1:52 PM Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 08, 2021 at 06:37:03PM +0000, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > This uses __INT64_TYPE__ if that's defined, and long long otherwise. I > > think that should be equivalent in all practical cases (I can imagine > > some strange target where __INT64_TYPE__ is defined by the compiler, > > but int64_t isn't defined when the configure checks look for it, and > > so the current code would use long long and with my patch would use > > __INT64_TYPE__ which could be long ... but I think in practice that's > > unlikely. It was probably more likely in older releases where the > > configure test would have been done with -std=gnu++98 and so int64_t > > might not have been declared by libc's <stdint.h>, but if that was the > > case then any ABI break it caused happened years ago. > > Does clang and ICC define __INT64_TYPE__ (at least on most architectures) > and does it match what gcc defines it to?
Clang (at least back to 3.0.0) and ICC (at least back to 16.0.0) define __INT64_TYPE__. If the value is not compatible with the target __int64_t type (matching GCC), there presumably are deeper problems. Thanks, David
