Re: CVS commit: src

[Martin Husemann <martin%duskware.de@localhost>]

On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 10:33:05PM -0200, Lourival Vieira Neto wrote:
> I also have no problem to step back and use 'long long', if _we_
> choose to reconsider that. IMHO, the fact that Lua 5.3 is using 'long
> long' is a good argument for that. I do prefer explicit width type,
> but my main argument is that 'long long' width could be lesser than 64
> bit.

Using long long is as arbitrary as using int64_t.
The only reasonable other choice would be intmax_t (and I'm suprised
Lua did not pick that).

However, none of these make a difference with any of the currently
supported architectures, so this argument is of cosmetic nature.


Martin