Re: CVS commit: src

[Lourival Vieira Neto <lneto%netbsd.org@localhost>]

Hi Martin,

On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 6:26 AM, Martin Husemann <martin%duskware.de@localhost> 
wrote:
> 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.

I don't think so. If int64_t is defined, its width is 64 bit.

> The only reasonable other choice would be intmax_t (and I'm suprised
> Lua did not pick that).

Maybe we should move to intmax_t. My argument to use int64_t instead
of intmax_t was the Lua 5.3 manual (which states that integers have 64
bit width). However, the implementation uses 'long long' by default. I
see no reason to do not use intmax_t anymore (even preferring fixed
width, intmax_t looks like a better option).

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

I agree. However, I think we should choose the more coherent type,
even that these types are the same in practice.

Regards,
-- 
Lourival Vieira Neto