Hi Martin, On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 6:26 AM, 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.
I don't think so. If int64_t is defined, its width is 64 bit. > The only reasonable other choice would be intmax_t (and I'm suprised > Lua did not pick that). Maybe we should move to intmax_t. My argument to use int64_t instead of intmax_t was the Lua 5.3 manual (which states that integers have 64 bit width). However, the implementation uses 'long long' by default. I see no reason to do not use intmax_t anymore (even preferring fixed width, intmax_t looks like a better option). > However, none of these make a difference with any of the currently > supported architectures, so this argument is of cosmetic nature. I agree. However, I think we should choose the more coherent type, even that these types are the same in practice. Regards, -- Lourival Vieira Neto
