On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 06:24:43PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 05:38:39PM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 11:11:14AM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > > In any case, wouldn't using a u64 type for "address" be better - isn't > > > "long long" 128-bit on 64-bit architectures? > > > > No, it's still 64-bit. There is no 128-bit integer in the C standard. > > Actually, that's a fallicy. > > The C99 standard (like previous versions) does not define exactly the > number of bits in each type. It defines ranks of type, and says that > lower ranks are a subrange of integers with higher ranks (for the same > signed-ness.) See section 6.2.5. > > So, it merely states that: > > range(char) <= range(short) <= range(int) <= range(long) <= range(long long)
You are probably right, I haven't checked. But the ABI we use in Linux for 64-bit, LP64, defines long long as 64-bit. Gcc has a int128_t type but it's specific to this toolchain. -- Catalin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
