Re: CVS commit: src

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

Hi Christos,

On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Christos Zoulas 
<christos%astron.com@localhost> wrote:
> In article <20131203082610.GA21739%mail.duskware.de@localhost>,
> 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.
>>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.
>
> Heh, this is why I suggested using intmax_t in the first place :-)

Also, moving to intmax_t, would help in string library. It needs a
length modifier for string.format (LUA_INTFRMLEN). AFAIK, there is no
length modifier defined for int64_t. Using intmax_t we could just use
"j".

Regards,
-- 
Lourival Vieira Neto