Re: Stupid question about integer sizes

2013-02-19 Thread Konstantin Belousov
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 06:52:34AM -0800, m...@freebsd.org wrote: > On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 5:11 AM, Borja Marcos wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > I'm really sorry if this is a stupid question, but as far as I know, > > u_int64_t defined in /usr/include/sys/types.h should *always* be > > a 64 bit un

Re: Stupid question about integer sizes

2013-02-19 Thread Borja Marcos
On Feb 19, 2013, at 3:52 PM, m...@freebsd.org wrote: > Last I knew -m32 still wasn't quite supported on 9.1. This is fixed Ahh I see. It should print a warning, then. It's the typical thing that can drive you nuts ;) Thanks, Borja. ___ freebsd

Re: Stupid question about integer sizes

2013-02-19 Thread mdf
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 5:11 AM, Borja Marcos wrote: > > Hello, > > I'm really sorry if this is a stupid question, but as far as I know, > u_int64_t defined in /usr/include/sys/types.h should *always* be > a 64 bit unsigned integer, right? > > Seems there's a bug (or I need more and stronger coff

Stupid question about integer sizes

2013-02-19 Thread Borja Marcos
Hello, I'm really sorry if this is a stupid question, but as far as I know, u_int64_t defined in /usr/include/sys/types.h should *always* be a 64 bit unsigned integer, right? Seems there's a bug (or I need more and stronger coffee). Compiling a program on a 64 bit system with -m32 gets the 64