Re: [ft-devel] Discrepancy in FT_MulFix macros and int sizes

[Alexei Podtelezhnikov]

On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 12:32 AM, Werner LEMBERG <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>> I was also wondering if FT_Long should be defined synonymous to
>> FT_Int32, etc.
>>
>>   typedef FT_Long FT_Int32
>
> Hmm.  FT_Int32 is *exactly* 32bit, while FT_Long is simply a typedef
> to `long' and thus *at least* 32bit, depending on the compiler and/or
> platform.
>
> On 64bit platforms I think that compilers produce more efficient code
> for the latter.

I run freetype on x86-64/linux with 64-bit long and 32-bit int. I was
taught that 'int' is the most natural and efficient integer type. The
memory footprint using long is obviously larger. I did not measure if
long is slower. On paper (https://gmplib.org/~tege/x86-timing.pdf),
the difference is tiny.