Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 06:16:23 +0400 From: Alex Semenyaka <alexs@ratmir.ru> To: Juli Mallett <jmallett@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: Alex Semenyaka <alexs@snark.ratmir.ru> Subject: Re: /bin/sh and 32-bit arithmetics [CORRECTED] Message-ID: <20030420021623.GA73500@snark.ratmir.ru> In-Reply-To: <20030419205028.A78458@FreeBSD.org> References: <20030420011039.GC52081@snark.ratmir.ru> <20030420013400.GB52428@snark.ratmir.ru> <20030419205028.A78458@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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. > <fooint>, 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030420021623.GA73500>