Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 16:19:03 -0500 From: Max Ruttenberg <mruttenberg@...technology.com> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: the size of the int type Thank you! On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 4:11 PM, Josiah Worcester <josiahw@...il.com> wrote: > 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 >> > -- Max Ruttenberg, Member of the Technical Staff Emu *Technology* 1400 E Angela Blvd, Unit 101 South Bend, IN 46617 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.