From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Philipp Stephani Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Dynamic loading progress Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2015 08:34:16 +0000 Message-ID: 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> <564FB048.1030702@cs.ucla.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114b07d41570b0052508dc0b X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1448094877 20558 80.91.229.3 (21 Nov 2015 08:34:37 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2015 08:34:37 +0000 (UTC) Cc: aurelien.aptel+emacs@gmail.com, tzz@lifelogs.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Paul Eggert , Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Nov 21 09:34:36 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 1a03cw-0000gO-HW for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 21 Nov 2015 09:34:34 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:51484 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a03cw-0004S2-1m for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 21 Nov 2015 03:34:34 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:44667) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a03cs-0004R7-1n for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 21 Nov 2015 03:34:30 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a03cr-0004cG-2n for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 21 Nov 2015 03:34:29 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-wm0-x22d.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c09::22d]:38175) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a03co-0004av-Dh; Sat, 21 Nov 2015 03:34:26 -0500 Original-Received: by wmec201 with SMTP id c201so47829705wme.1; Sat, 21 Nov 2015 00:34:26 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=TTdRPMLuoMplg9GZWZe7MQBeGk7z/dqxzpEXHqyNXHc=; b=gl+ztxCAy909pPnE01ICh3rMS+Km668MQsziAVLfEUnEbphUxStbp24XLwfRkD2rH1 SmG54pLy4tpiF0B9jt45+iRyRjm4fWYSc+sOcWYNAymenQYm6USzBF9yUOEmBru0bP80 r/SF/fxSVBxEbxIhZBAEwSKwPpUq1tZMb/8OeteukMNll2LDqfKjblkKQVDVIPG09YeU U731Lgx/IDLNSyzz4zaOna6qdFp8HVvnQ3nsZ2vEtnSBhHgKpD9P70MBqCP+Z0LoeGQB QUt95oszbm3oywCARDhgl+YxYu8wHvcRzENVlM+Jw9Y7pHzYSfgX/HRbS4f+dHatcV09 wtpg== X-Received: by 10.28.187.4 with SMTP id l4mr4425782wmf.33.1448094865910; Sat, 21 Nov 2015 00:34:25 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <564FB048.1030702@cs.ucla.edu> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2a00:1450:400c:c09::22d 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:194924 Archived-At: --001a114b07d41570b0052508dc0b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Paul Eggert schrieb am Sa., 21. Nov. 2015 um 00:44 Uhr: > 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. > I'm not feeling strongly about the exact type, but I'd suggest to wait for Daniel's input before making a final decision. --001a114b07d41570b0052508dc0b Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


Paul E= ggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu> = schrieb am Sa., 21. Nov. 2015 um 00:44=C2=A0Uhr:
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 rar= e, we
might as well not impose obstacles to porting to them if it's easy, whi= ch it is
here.

intmax_t is not the only alternative. We could also use 'long long int&= #39;. That's
also portable to any C99 host, and should be just as well supported as intm= ax_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.

I'm not feeling strongly about the exact t= ype, but I'd suggest to wait for Daniel's input before making a fin= al decision.=C2=A0
--001a114b07d41570b0052508dc0b--