RE: [patch] changing lua_Number to int64_t

["Terry Moore" <tmm%mcci.com@localhost>]

I believe that if you want the Lua scripts to be portable across NetBSD
deployments, you should choose a well-known fixed width.

Watch out, by the way, for compiled scripts; I have not checked Lua 5.x, but
you may find if not careful that the compiled binary is not loadable on
machines with different choices for LP64, ILP32, etc. This is somewhat
independent of the choice of lua_Number mapping.

--Terry

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tech-kern-owner%NetBSD.org@localhost 
> [mailto:tech-kern-owner%NetBSD.org@localhost] On
> Behalf Of Lourival Vieira Neto
> Sent: Saturday, November 16, 2013 22:36
> To: Christos Zoulas
> Cc: tech-kern%netbsd.org@localhost
> Subject: Re: [patch] changing lua_Number to int64_t
> 
> On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 10:44 PM, Christos Zoulas 
> <christos%zoulas.com@localhost>
> wrote:
> > On Nov 16,  9:30pm, lourival.neto%gmail.com@localhost (Lourival Vieira Neto)
wrote:
> > -- Subject: Re: [patch] changing lua_Number to int64_t
> >
> > | On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 8:52 PM, Christos Zoulas 
> > <christos%astron.com@localhost>
> wrote:
> > | > In article <52872B0C.5080309%msys.ch@localhost>, Marc Balmer  
> > <marc%msys.ch@localhost>
> wrote:
> > | >>Changing the number type to int64_t is certainly a good idea.  Two
> > | >>questions, however:
> > | >
> > | > Why not intmax_t?
> > |
> > | My only argument is that int64_t has a well-defined width and, AFAIK,
> > | intmax_t could vary. But I have no strong feelings about this. Do you
> > | think intmax_t would be better?
> >
> > Bigger is better. And you can use %jd to print which is a big win.
> 
> I agree that bigger is better and %jd is much better then "%" PRI/SCN.
> But don't you think that to know the exact width is even better?
> 
> Regards,
> --
> Lourival Vieira Neto