Re: u/int64 support for glib, status?

[Paolo Molaro <lupus ximian com>]

On 09/20/01 Tim Janik wrote:
> before you jump to G_TYPE_INT64 too quickly, i'd rather have you adress my
> second note in detail. what makes you think 64bit is going to be supported
> by upcoming standards (i'm not saying i'm sure it's _not_ going to be
> supported, i'm just not sure it will be). for 8/16/32, i can be pretty sure
> because there's a hell of a lot of code out there that relies on having
> those sizes.

Just as a data point, there are architectures that have a 64 bit integer
but _no_ 16 bit integer type (and neither a 32 bit integer!), so, before
worrying about future standards I'd worry about current systems.
That said, I'm in favour of having G_TYPE_INT64. G_TYPE_BIGINT would be
deceiving as it suggests it refers to arbitrarily large integers
(bigint is commonly used for integers with arbitrary precision).

lupus

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
lupus debian org                                     debian/rules
lupus ximian com                             Monkeys do it better