Subject: Re: Generic LP64 define?
To: Chris G. Demetriou <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Eduardo Horvath <email@example.com>
Date: 08/03/2000 08:42:15
On 2 Aug 2000, Chris G. Demetriou wrote:
> 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:
In the kernel alone there's:
that use __alpha__ as a check for 64-bitness.
> 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-)
Can't say it's necessarily a good thing. Although at times it may be a