On Feb 20, 2013, at 2:42 PM, Hal Finkel <[email protected]> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Jordan Rose" <[email protected]> >> To: [email protected] >> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 4:28:41 PM >> Subject: r175681 - Revert "intmax_t is long long on Darwin, not long." >> >> Author: jrose >> Date: Wed Feb 20 16:28:41 2013 >> New Revision: 175681 >> >> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=175681&view=rev >> Log: >> Revert "intmax_t is long long on Darwin, not long." >> >> 'long' and 'long long' are different for the purposes of mangling. >> This caused <rdar://problem/13254874>. > > Can you please explain this? I understand the name-mangling difference, but > if long long is larger than long, then intmax_t needs to be long long, no?
Jordan's commit message is imprecise; he's only changing the x86-64 Darwin platform. On 32-bit platforms, intmax_t should definitely be 'long long'. intmax_t is still not actually the largest type supported by the compiler — we do support int128_t on several platforms. Anyway, in this case, our hands are tied by the existing behavior of GCC. John. _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
