Eric Snow added the comment: Thanks for pointing that out, Victor. Given the precedent I switched to using int64_t. The patch actually uses PY_INT64_T, but I didn't see a reason to use int64_t directly. FWIW, there *are* a few places that use int_fast64_t, but they are rather specialized and I didn't want this patch to be a place where I had to deal with setting a more general precedent. :)
---------- Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file46105/interpreter-id-4.diff _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue29102> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
