From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Paul Eggert Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Dynamic loading progress Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 11:13:34 -0800 Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department Message-ID: <564F70DE.5040001@cs.ucla.edu> References: <8737wgw7kf.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87io5bv1it.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87egfzuwca.fsf@lifelogs.com> <876118u6f2.fsf@lifelogs.com> <8737w3qero.fsf@lifelogs.com> <831tbn9g9j.fsf@gnu.org> <878u5upw7o.fsf@lifelogs.com> <83ziya8xph.fsf@gnu.org> <83y4du80xo.fsf@gnu.org> <837fld6lps.fsf@gnu.org> <564F69F1.1030305@cs.ucla.edu> <83d1v45wuj.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1448046846 29003 80.91.229.3 (20 Nov 2015 19:14:06 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 19:14:06 +0000 (UTC) Cc: aurelien.aptel+emacs@gmail.com, p.stephani2@gmail.com, tzz@lifelogs.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Nov 20 20:13:57 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Zzr85-0003QJ-E9 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 20 Nov 2015 20:13:53 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:49439 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zzr84-0007fn-QE for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 20 Nov 2015 14:13:52 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:43923) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zzr7s-0007fh-KZ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 20 Nov 2015 14:13:41 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zzr7r-00038H-Os for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 20 Nov 2015 14:13:40 -0500 Original-Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([131.179.128.68]:50713) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zzr7o-00032k-00; Fri, 20 Nov 2015 14:13:36 -0500 Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14269160D74; Fri, 20 Nov 2015 11:13:35 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id ovU2xShWvD3f; Fri, 20 Nov 2015 11:13:34 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67E9B160DFD; Fri, 20 Nov 2015 11:13:34 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at zimbra.cs.ucla.edu Original-Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id 8U6LBiJ7421G; Fri, 20 Nov 2015 11:13:34 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from [192.168.1.9] (pool-100-32-155-148.lsanca.fios.verizon.net [100.32.155.148]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3EE58160D74; Fri, 20 Nov 2015 11:13:34 -0800 (PST) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 In-Reply-To: <83d1v45wuj.fsf@gnu.org> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x X-Received-From: 131.179.128.68 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:194884 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii wrote: > intmax_t is a 64-bit type on most modern platforms, > right? Yes, this is a no-op change for the platforms I know of. It's more future-proof, that's all. Neither C99 nor C11 nor even POSIX guarantee that int64_t is supported (this is for portability to mainframes with 72-bit longs, and I suppose to hypothetical future machines). Of course it's fine to use int64_t in platform-specific code where the platform guarantees that int64_t exists.