----- Original Message ----- > From: "John McCall" <[email protected]> > To: "Hal Finkel" <[email protected]> > Cc: "Jordan Rose" <[email protected]>, [email protected] > Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 5:56:09 PM > Subject: Re: r175681 - Revert "intmax_t is long long on Darwin, not long." > > 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, Jordan, thanks for the clarification! -Hal > > John. _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
