Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2020 10:29:09 -0500 From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] add statx On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 10:10:40AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Rich Felker: > > >> That's why the kernel always uses unsigned long long for __u64, which > >> seems a reasonable trade-off to me. It will make porting to 128-bit > >> architectures difficult. But I think we should focus on the > >> architectures we have today. > > > > I disagree strongly with the last sentence. Designing an *API* in a > > way that's not compatible with anything but long long == 64-bit is bad > > API design. > > We don't know what LL128 architectures will look like. For all we know, > they might have more expressive type descriptors for variadic functions, > so the whole issue of matching integer types with precise format > specifiers becomes moot. I don't follow. Mechanically the wrong format for long long vs int64_t *already works*; the problem at hand is that per the language, it's undefined, and rightly produces warnings. None of that would go away if LL128 archs used a fancy variadic call mechanism. Rich
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.