Hi Justin, On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 8:04 PM, Justin Cormack <jus...@specialbusservice.com> wrote: > > On 3 Dec 2013 16:02, "Christos Zoulas" <chris...@zoulas.com> wrote: >> >> On Dec 3, 11:45am, ln...@netbsd.org (Lourival Vieira Neto) wrote: >> -- Subject: Re: CVS commit: src >> >> | Also, moving to intmax_t, would help in string library. It needs a >> | length modifier for string.format (LUA_INTFRMLEN). AFAIK, there is no >> | length modifier defined for int64_t. Using intmax_t we could just use >> | "j". >> >> Yes, the other good side effect of intmax_t is that this is "the best >> the machine" can do in terms of integer range. >> > > No that is a bad side effect. It must always be 64 bits. In the kernel you > have to deal with uint64_t which will behave differently if intmax_t is ever > bigger than 64 bits, so code will break. So either use int64_t or what Lua > uses and assert that that is 64 bits.
What side effect? Why it must always be 64 bit? Also, I don't get the unsigned problem. What it will break? Moreover, if we don't have a 64-bit int type, what we should do? Disable Lua? Regards, -- Lourival Vieira Neto
