Subject: Re: Generic LP64 define?
To: Eduardo Horvath <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Chris G. Demetriou <email@example.com>
Date: 08/02/2000 17:25:00
firstname.lastname@example.org (Eduardo Horvath) writes:
> Now to detect a system that's LP64 we need to check a special define for
> each architecture. [ ... ]
> If we start having 64-bit POWER/PPC, 64-bit MIPs, or ia64, these checks
> will quickly become unweildy.
So, one can look at these with an eye toward making them easier to do.
But when I see something which checks for LP64, I think "broken code."
I did a quick find in the sources (not quite current, and i didn't let
it run to completion), found two places which matched a grep for the
string you mentioned:
the latter seems like it would be better solved by using c9x-like
format specifiers (from systems headers) as appropriate, rather than
locally checking LP64-ness.
the former seems ... remarkably special. I see no reason why we want
to be encouraging people to do things like that.
Are there examples where this type of check is actually a good thing
to be doing that my (admittedly incomplete) check of our sources
didn't find? 8-)