Re: Dynamic loading progress

[Paul Eggert]

Philipp Stephani wrote:
> > Why make the behavior vary depending on what intmax_t is? At least
> > >int64_t is nice and explicit.
> > >
> > >
> True. The time when Emacs integers will be larger than 64 bits is probably
> far in the future.

No, I've already been toying with integers wider than 64 bits in my own private 
copy of emacs.  It's not ready for publication yet, but you should be assuming 
that bignums are possible and even desirable, and foreign-function APIs should 
not preclude their use.

Also, the C standard does not require support for int64_t.  It's OK to use 
int64_t in platform-specific code where you know the platform has int64_t, but 
otherwise it's better to avoid it.  The Emacs source code largely avoids int64_t 
now, and there's no good reason to require it here.