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 15:44:08 -0800 Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department Message-ID: <564FB048.1030702@cs.ucla.edu> References: <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> <564F8355.2070806@cs.ucla.edu> <564F89CC.403@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 1448063070 19783 80.91.229.3 (20 Nov 2015 23:44:30 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 23:44:30 +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 Sat Nov 21 00:44:21 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 1ZzvLm-0008Bt-Nh for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 21 Nov 2015 00:44:18 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:50408 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZzvLl-0002L2-VO for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 20 Nov 2015 18:44:17 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:49760) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZzvLi-0002Kw-Do for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 20 Nov 2015 18:44:15 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZzvLh-0003dv-KL for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 20 Nov 2015 18:44:14 -0500 Original-Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([131.179.128.68]:35884) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZzvLd-0003dR-RR; Fri, 20 Nov 2015 18:44:09 -0500 Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 214BE160D25; Fri, 20 Nov 2015 15:44:09 -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 OParw7V1P34K; Fri, 20 Nov 2015 15:44:08 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C165160DFE; Fri, 20 Nov 2015 15:44:08 -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 rknZuOWiUngH; Fri, 20 Nov 2015 15:44:08 -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 42A6B160D25; Fri, 20 Nov 2015 15:44:08 -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:194913 Archived-At: Philipp Stephani wrote: > Maybe not likely, but not impossible. I've never run into it, and have never heard of anyone running into it. In contrast, there are a few machines without int64_t -- though admittedly rare, we might as well not impose obstacles to porting to them if it's easy, which it is here. intmax_t is not the only alternative. We could also use 'long long int'. That's also portable to any C99 host, and should be just as well supported as intmax_t is (it has printf formats too). 'long long int' has been around for longer than intmax_t has, so in that sense it's a more-conservative choice.