Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You could have written this with equal validity:
> long int typedef long int64_t;
Not a good idea, though, because C99 says this:
6.11.5 Storage-class specifiers
1The placement of a storage-class specifier other than at the
beginning o
On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 07:10:24PM +0200, Jeremie Koenig wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 06:38:02PM +0200, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> > typedef int64_t long long;
>
> FWIW, it's "typedef long long int64_t;".
> The syntax of typedef's is similar to variable declarations.
It is precisely the same,
* Petter Reinholdtsen:
>> There are 64-bit architectures which whose C compiler does not
>> support long long. "long long" is a C99 feature, too, but it's much
>> older than (it was supported by the GNU compiler in the
>> early 90s, IIRC).
>
> Any examples of an 64-bit architecture not support '
On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 06:38:02PM +0200, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> typedef int64_t long long;
FWIW, it's "typedef long long int64_t;".
The syntax of typedef's is similar to variable declarations.
--
Jeremie Koenig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subj
[Florian Weimer]
> > typedef int64_t long long;
>
> There are 64-bit architectures which whose C compiler does not
> support long long. "long long" is a C99 feature, too, but it's much
> older than (it was supported by the GNU compiler in the
> early 90s, IIRC).
Any examples of an 64-bit archit
* Adrian von Bidder:
> On Wednesday 31 August 2005 18.03, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * Lars Wirzenius:
>
> Isn't this:
>
>> > int64_t, which
>> > can, if necessary, be provided using suitable autotools magic.
>
> exactly the answer to your:
>
>>[...] Some upstream developers have to deal with old So
On Wednesday 31 August 2005 18.03, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Lars Wirzenius:
Isn't this:
> > int64_t, which
> > can, if necessary, be provided using suitable autotools magic.
exactly the answer to your:
>[...] Some upstream developers have to deal with old Solaris
> installations, though. We m
* Lars Wirzenius:
> ke, 2005-08-31 kello 15:28 +0200, Florian Weimer kirjoitti:
>> is a recent invention
>
> Where "recent" means "six years old". :) was included in the
> 1999 version of the C standard.
And it wasn't really backed by real-world implementations at that time
AFAIK.
> Personally
On Wed, 2005-08-31 at 15:28 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Ondrej Sury:
>
> > I am unsure if such patch would be accepted upstream, since Cyrus runs
> > on more then Linux and *BSD variants.
> >
> > Does Solaris/AIX/whatever(tm) has ?
>
> is a recent invention, and some Solaris versions which
ke, 2005-08-31 kello 15:28 +0200, Florian Weimer kirjoitti:
> is a recent invention
Where "recent" means "six years old". :) was included in the
1999 version of the C standard.
It seems to take almost a decade for implementations of new C standards
to become widespread enough that you can rely
* Ondrej Sury:
> I am unsure if such patch would be accepted upstream, since Cyrus runs
> on more then Linux and *BSD variants.
>
> Does Solaris/AIX/whatever(tm) has ?
is a recent invention, and some Solaris versions which are
actually used in the wild do not support it. seems to be
more wides
Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Ondrej Sury]
> > I am unsure if such patch would be accepted upstream, since Cyrus
> > runs on more then Linux and *BSD variants.
> >
> > Does Solaris/AIX/whatever(tm) has ?
>
> I believe both SOlaris and AIX got it. It is a POSIX standard header.
Well, rather C99.
On 31 Aug 2005, at 9:54 am, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
[Ondrej Sury]
I am unsure if such patch would be accepted upstream, since Cyrus
runs on more then Linux and *BSD variants.
Does Solaris/AIX/whatever(tm) has ?
I believe both SOlaris and AIX got it. It is a POSIX standard
header. C
[Ondrej Sury]
> I am unsure if such patch would be accepted upstream, since Cyrus
> runs on more then Linux and *BSD variants.
>
> Does Solaris/AIX/whatever(tm) has ?
I believe both SOlaris and AIX got it. It is a POSIX standard header. Check
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/basede
On Tue, 2005-08-30 at 10:28 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Aug 2005, Richard Atterer wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 01:25:09PM +0200, Ondrej Sury wrote:
> > > does all archs in debian have support for long long datatype?
> >
> > Yes, AFAIK, but...
> >
> > > I want to a
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005, Richard Atterer wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 01:25:09PM +0200, Ondrej Sury wrote:
> > does all archs in debian have support for long long datatype?
>
> Yes, AFAIK, but...
>
> > I want to apply 64bit quotas for cyrus22-imapd and I have to choose
> > between patch which has
On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 01:25:09PM +0200, Ondrej Sury wrote:
> does all archs in debian have support for long long datatype?
Yes, AFAIK, but...
> I want to apply 64bit quotas for cyrus22-imapd and I have to choose
> between patch which has checks for long long support and patch which
> doesn't ha
Hi,
does all archs in debian have support for long long datatype?
I want to apply 64bit quotas for cyrus22-imapd and I have to choose
between patch which has checks for long long support and patch which
doesn't have this check and use long long by default.
Ondrej.
--
Ondrej Sury <[EMAIL PROTECT
18 matches
Mail list logo
