Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 23:15:10 -0700 From: Tim Kientzle <kientzle@freebsd.org> To: Yar Tikhiy <yar@comp.chem.msu.su> Cc: Gary Corcoran <gcorcoran@rcn.com>, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: fts(3) patch for review Message-ID: <4678C5EE.7050402@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20070619141545.GB29685@comp.chem.msu.su> References: <20070618202758.GA16711@comp.chem.msu.su> <4676FD4F.3030302@rcn.com> <20070618225134.GA18473@owl.midgard.homeip.net> <20070619141545.GB29685@comp.chem.msu.su>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>>>>- for things that should be at least 64 bits wide, use long long >>>> and not int64_t, as the latter is an optional type. >>> >>>Isn't "long long" a gcc-ism, whereas int64's are portable.... >> >>'long long' is part of C99 and was widely supported by many compilers even >>before C99 was approved. int64_t is also part of C99. .... > > ... the only mandatory <stdint.h> types are intmax_t and uintmax_t while > all the [u]intN_t types are declared optional by C99. So why not use intmax_t? Tim Kientzle
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4678C5EE.7050402>