In article <20131203082610.ga21...@mail.duskware.de>, Martin Husemann <mar...@duskware.de> wrote: >On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 10:33:05PM -0200, Lourival Vieira Neto wrote: >> I also have no problem to step back and use 'long long', if _we_ >> choose to reconsider that. IMHO, the fact that Lua 5.3 is using 'long >> long' is a good argument for that. I do prefer explicit width type, >> but my main argument is that 'long long' width could be lesser than 64 >> bit. > >Using long long is as arbitrary as using int64_t. >The only reasonable other choice would be intmax_t (and I'm suprised >Lua did not pick that). > >However, none of these make a difference with any of the currently >supported architectures, so this argument is of cosmetic nature.
Heh, this is why I suggested using intmax_t in the first place :-) christos
