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 12:32:21 -0800 Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department Message-ID: <564F8355.2070806@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> 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 1448051585 9954 80.91.229.3 (20 Nov 2015 20:33:05 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 20:33:05 +0000 (UTC) Cc: aurelien.aptel+emacs@gmail.com, tzz@lifelogs.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Philipp Stephani , Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Nov 20 21:32:49 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 1ZzsML-0007Kr-Sn for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 20 Nov 2015 21:32:42 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:49751 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZzsMK-0000ur-TG for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 20 Nov 2015 15:32:40 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:36325) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZzsM8-0000uW-48 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 20 Nov 2015 15:32:28 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZzsM7-0006lC-Ax for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 20 Nov 2015 15:32:28 -0500 Original-Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([131.179.128.68]:55287) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZzsM3-0006ko-6h; Fri, 20 Nov 2015 15:32:23 -0500 Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E823160D74; Fri, 20 Nov 2015 12:32:22 -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 0bPeTDGQS3p3; Fri, 20 Nov 2015 12:32:21 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBBAC160DFD; Fri, 20 Nov 2015 12:32:21 -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 6hpDxTNdOWxV; Fri, 20 Nov 2015 12:32:21 -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 93F8B160D74; Fri, 20 Nov 2015 12:32:21 -0800 (PST) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 In-Reply-To: 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:194893 Archived-At: Philipp Stephani wrote: > Daniel felt pretty strongly about using int64 for fixnums. As I recall, he felt that we shouldn't use EMACS_INT in the module API, and int64_t was merely a means to that goal. If so, that's not a reason to prefer int64_t over intmax_t; it's merely a reason to make sure that intmax_t is at least as portable as int64_t is in this area. Which it is. > Is there any reason to change that? Yes, int64_t is not required by POSIX, C99, etc. That is, int64_t is an optional type. In contrast, intmax_t is required on all C99 platforms, and it has better support (e.g., there's a printf format specifier for it), so there are advantages to intmax_t over int64_t. I don't know of any advantage int64_t would have over intmax_t on any platform that Emacs supports.