Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 21:11:25 +0000 From: Josiah Worcester <josiahw@...il.com> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: the size of the int type I do not know of anything in musl that assumes "int" is 32-bit, but I'm confident that implementing it as anything else will break a large amount of third party code. Practically all platforms in common use have 32-bit int (regardless of the machine's word size), and as such a lot of code relies on this (implicitly or explicitly). You would do better to match the convention used on modern-day Unix systems, where int is 32-bit, long is the machine word size, and long long is 64-bit. If you do this everything should pretty much function as it expects, with regard to the standard C types' sizes. On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 1:01 PM Max Ruttenberg < mruttenberg@...technology.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I'm wondering if there's any code in musl that makes assumptions on the > size of the "int" type. > > I only ask because I'm debating how my compiler (which targets a machine > with a 64-bit word size) should define the int type. Ideally I'd like to > break as little library code as possible. > > Max > Content of type "text/html" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.