Re: [ft-devel] integer suffix abuse

[Graham Asher]

I very much doubt this does any harm; modern compilers will do the right 
thing. It won't do any harm to get rid of the L suffixes, but it is 
unlikely to make any difference at all to compiled size or performance 
on any platforms that matter.

Best regards,

Graham


On 24/06/2015 17:24, suzuki toshiya wrote:
> Hmm, therefore, should we remove all constants using L suffix
> directly, and use such constants as the macros which is defined
> with appropriate suffix under the cpp-conditionals for 16-bit,
> 32-bit and 64-bit systems?
>
> Regards,
> mpsuzuki
>
> Alexei Podtelezhnikov wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I think we abuse the suffix L in integer constants. I understand the
> > desire to make sure that very common 0x10000L is 32-bit to represent a
> > unit in 16.16 fixed-point representation. On modern 64-bit systems
> > that actually becomes an unnecessary 64-bit constant. Perhaps the
> > suffix was used with 16-bit systems in mind, but 0x10000 cannot fit
> > into 16-bit integer and will always be 32-bit even on 16-bit systems.
> >
> > Am I missing something?
> >
> > Alexei
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Freetype-devel mailing list
> > address@hidden
> > https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/freetype-devel
> _______________________________________________
> Freetype-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/freetype-devel