From owner-freebsd-standards@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Apr 19 19:16:30 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-standards@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41C7537B401; Sat, 19 Apr 2003 19:16:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from snark.ratmir.ru (snark.ratmir.ru [213.24.248.177]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 792D943FB1; Sat, 19 Apr 2003 19:16:27 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from alexs@snark.ratmir.ru) Received: from snark.ratmir.ru (alexs@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by snark.ratmir.ru (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h3K2GOC2073586; Sun, 20 Apr 2003 06:16:25 +0400 (MSD) (envelope-from alexs@snark.ratmir.ru) Received: (from alexs@localhost) by snark.ratmir.ru (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h3K2GNcJ073585; Sun, 20 Apr 2003 06:16:23 +0400 (MSD) Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 06:16:23 +0400 From: Alex Semenyaka To: Juli Mallett Message-ID: <20030420021623.GA73500@snark.ratmir.ru> References: <20030420011039.GC52081@snark.ratmir.ru> <20030420013400.GB52428@snark.ratmir.ru> <20030419205028.A78458@FreeBSD.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030419205028.A78458@FreeBSD.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i cc: freebsd-standards@FreeBSD.ORG cc: Alex Semenyaka cc: Alex Semenyaka Subject: Re: /bin/sh and 32-bit arithmetics [CORRECTED] X-BeenThere: freebsd-standards@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Standards compliance List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 02:16:30 -0000 On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 08:50:29PM -0500, Juli Mallett wrote: > may be doing more work than is necessary. Simply switching to > "long" in place of "int" for everything (and LONG_ vs INT_) may be > a better start than using intmax_t? intmax_t may be very slow, That %qd is just a misktake, sorry. Should be %jd. Wrong merge. Then, I used jost 'long long' but people from -hackers told me that the right way is intmax_t. Well, if it conforms to the current style I can switch it back. Or, use some kind of explicit type. Just long instead of int is not enough for i386 since it is 32-bit type. > might be for building i386 with 64-bit long (ha ha ha), and that > seems what you want- a wider type on a sucky architecture ;) Well it is a bit sucky but not too much _here_ actually. There is nothing special with 64-bit arithmetics. > As for the INTMAX_LEN or whatnot, that's bogusish. There are ways > of (at run time) deducing the maximum size of a buffer for a I asked people about the _typical_ solution. Nobody answered, unfortunatelly. > , probably you can shove them into some init routine that > sh surely has. > > Also, I don't know how we feel about C++/C99 style comments in > the base system. Oh, I see. I'll change it, it is the easiest thing here > Thanx, > juli (who imagines bde would have better advice.) Really would like to read any opinion from the experienced people. SY, Alex