This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [basic-improvements] 32x64 proposed fix
- From: Zack Weinberg <zack at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 11:32:59 -0800
- Subject: Re: [basic-improvements] 32x64 proposed fix
- References: <23080000.1039976126@warlock.codesourcery.com>
Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> writes:
> (By the way, I see that we're trying __int64_t, while C99 has int64_t,
> on systems where that makes sense. There's no need to change anything
> here, but if we run into a system where we need this type that does not
> have __int64_t, we may want to look for int64_t instead.)
int64_t is a typedef, unavailable unless <stdint.h> or <inttypes.h>
are included, and we don't even look for those at present. And I
think it unlikely that such a system wouldn't support 'long long',
since both headers are C99 inventions.
__int64_t by contrast appears to be MSVC's sole built-in 64-bit type.
I would support use of <stdint.h> types in the compiler instead of our
current inventions, but that's a future cleanup.
zw