[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Dynamic loading progress
From: |
Daniel Colascione |
Subject: |
Re: Dynamic loading progress |
Date: |
Sun, 4 Oct 2015 12:57:28 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0 |
On 10/04/2015 12:55 PM, Paul Eggert wrote:
> Daniel Colascione wrote:
>> Any compiler modern enough to support C99 also
>> supports synthesizing 64-bit integers from whatever the platform makes
>> available.
>
> No, all that C99 requires is support for integers *at least* 64 bits.
> C99 does not require support for int64_t, i.e., integers that are
> *exactly* 64 bits.
>
> If we need a type that is at least 64 bits wide, we can use int_fast64_t
> or int_least64_t. These types are required by C99 and will work even on
> the rare platforms that lack native 64-bit words. But really, I'm
> hoping we can avoid the *int*64* stuff. What's the point of putting a
> 64-bit limit on an API that is supposed to be long-lived and portable?
Can you really imagine a general-purpose machine with 128-bit words? Why
would you build such a thing?
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
- Re: Dynamic loading progress, (continued)
- Re: Dynamic loading progress, Philipp Stephani, 2015/10/14
- Re: Dynamic loading progress, Daniel Colascione, 2015/10/15
- Re: Dynamic loading progress, Aurélien Aptel, 2015/10/14
- Re: Dynamic loading progress, Philipp Stephani, 2015/10/14
- Re: Dynamic loading progress, Aurélien Aptel, 2015/10/15
- Re: Dynamic loading progress, Stephen Leake, 2015/10/15
- Re: Dynamic loading progress, Philipp Stephani, 2015/10/08
- Re: Dynamic loading progress, Paul Eggert, 2015/10/08
- Re: Dynamic loading progress, Daniel Colascione, 2015/10/08
- Re: Dynamic loading progress, Paul Eggert, 2015/10/08
- Re: Dynamic loading progress,
Daniel Colascione <=
- Re: Dynamic loading progress, Paul Eggert, 2015/10/08
Re: Dynamic loading progress, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/10/08