On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Christos Zoulas <chris...@astron.com> wrote: > In article > <calhokcbno1cgv067xxzzp249p+moa21ftqyfqkuvrpnjqzg...@mail.gmail.com>, > Lourival Vieira Neto <ln...@netbsd.org> wrote: >>Hi Valery, >> >>On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Valery Ushakov <u...@stderr.spb.ru> wrote: >>> On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 11:45:15 -0200, Lourival Vieira Neto wrote: >>> >>>> 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". >>> >>> There is: PRId64 &c. >> >>I think PRI/SCNd64 are conversion specifiers. In practice, I think >>they will always expand to the same thing. But the standard >>differentiates these two kind of specifiers. Doesn't it? > > They don't. On i386 for example PRId64 expands to "lld" and on amd64 > it expands to "ld".
I mean, they will expand to the same "type". That is, 'conversion specifiers' and 'length specifiers' are the same thing in practice, but two different things on the standard. That is what I understood reading it, anyway. So, is it alright to change lua_Number to intmax_t or we should move this discussion to tech-kern again? Regards, -- Lourival Vieira Neto