On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Justin Cormack <jus...@specialbusservice.com> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 4:52 PM, Lourival Vieira Neto > <lourival.n...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 2:02 PM, Christos Zoulas <chris...@zoulas.com> wrote: >>> On Nov 17, 10:46am, lourival.n...@gmail.com (Lourival Vieira Neto) wrote: >>> -- Subject: Re: [patch] changing lua_Number to int64_t >>> >>> | On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 7:37 AM, Marc Balmer <m...@msys.ch> wrote: >>> | > Am 17.11.13 04:49, schrieb Terry Moore: >>> | >> I believe that if you want the Lua scripts to be portable across NetBSD >>> | >> deployments, you should choose a well-known fixed width. >>> | > >>> | > I don't see this as very important. Lua scripts will hardly depend on >>> | > the size of an integer. >>> | >>> | But they could. I think that the script programmers should know if the >>> | numeric data type is enough for their usage (e.g., time diffs). >>> >>> By making it the biggest type possible, you never need to be worried. >> >> Right.. you just convinced me.. if no one opposes, I'll change that to >> intmax_t and get rid of PRI/SCNd64 =). > > 1. Lua 5.3 will have 64 bit integer support as standard, which will > make interop and reuse between kernel and userspace code much easier, > iff we use int64_t
If they are using int64_t for integers, I think it is a good reason to us to stick to int64_t. Regards, -- Lourival Vieira Neto