Re: the size of the int type

[Max Ruttenberg <mruttenberg@emutechnology.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1249 bytes --]

Thank you!

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 4:11 PM, Josiah Worcester <josiahw@gmail.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@emutechnology.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

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2539 bytes --]