On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 12:32 AM, Werner LEMBERG <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I was also wondering if FT_Long should be defined synonymous to >> FT_Int32, etc. >> >> typedef FT_Long FT_Int32 > > Hmm. FT_Int32 is *exactly* 32bit, while FT_Long is simply a typedef > to `long' and thus *at least* 32bit, depending on the compiler and/or > platform. > > On 64bit platforms I think that compilers produce more efficient code > for the latter.
I run freetype on x86-64/linux with 64-bit long and 32-bit int. I was taught that 'int' is the most natural and efficient integer type. The memory footprint using long is obviously larger. I did not measure if long is slower. On paper (https://gmplib.org/~tege/x86-timing.pdf), the difference is tiny. _______________________________________________ Freetype-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/freetype-devel
