Hi Christos, On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Christos Zoulas <chris...@astron.com> wrote: > In article <20131203082610.ga21...@mail.duskware.de>, > Martin Husemann <mar...@duskware.de> wrote: >>On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 10:33:05PM -0200, Lourival Vieira Neto wrote: >>> I also have no problem to step back and use 'long long', if _we_ >>> choose to reconsider that. IMHO, the fact that Lua 5.3 is using 'long >>> long' is a good argument for that. I do prefer explicit width type, >>> but my main argument is that 'long long' width could be lesser than 64 >>> bit. >> >>Using long long is as arbitrary as using int64_t. >>The only reasonable other choice would be intmax_t (and I'm suprised >>Lua did not pick that). >> >>However, none of these make a difference with any of the currently >>supported architectures, so this argument is of cosmetic nature. > > Heh, this is why I suggested using intmax_t in the first place :-)
Also, moving to intmax_t, would help in string library. It needs a length modifier for string.format (LUA_INTFRMLEN). AFAIK, there is no length modifier defined for int64_t. Using intmax_t we could just use "j". Regards, -- Lourival Vieira Neto