On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 02:09:37PM -0700, James Chacon wrote: > > On Jun 19, 2008, at 12:22 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: > >> On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 11:56:43AM -0700, James Chacon wrote: >>> Isn't that wrong then for 64bit machines where int is 32 and the spec >>> says >>> "signed long" is what should be used here? >> >> The wording of the standard means that you can support more, but don't >> have to. It is valid to use multi-precision math for example. >> > > Umm...it doesn't say "signed long as defined on a 32bit machine", it just > says signed long. > > That implies to me on a given architecture you must support a signed long > size here which would mean on LP64 chopping it at max int is incorrect. Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't intmax_t defined as the largest integer type a given machine can manipulate? That has to be at least as large as long, on any machine. -- Quentin Garnier - cube%cubidou.net@localhost - cube%NetBSD.org@localhost "See the look on my face from staying too long in one place [...] every time the morning breaks I know I'm closer to falling" KT Tunstall, Saving My Face, Drastic Fantastic, 2007.
Description: PGP signature