Re: Using int32_t instead of IV for code

[Buddha Buck]

At 04:55 PM 09-13-2001 -0400, Andy Dougherty wrote:
>In perl.perl6.internals, you wrote:
>
> >The attached patch makes all bytecode have a type of int32_t rather than
> >IV; it also contains the other stuff I needed to get the tests running
> >on my Alpha (modifications to config.h.in and register.c).
>
>I think this is a bad idea.  There simply is no guarantee that there's
>a native integral type with 32 bits.  And having an int32_t type that
>*isn't* 32-bits is just plain confusing.  Just ask anyone who's gotten
>burnt by perl5's I32, which has the exact same problem.

Well, since bytecode is defined to be 32-bit, it makes sense to define it 
as an int32_t type and have the definition of an int32_t be platform-specific.