Re: u/int64 support for glib, status?

[vishnu pobox com]

On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 04:22:55PM -0700, Erik Walthinsen wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Sep 2001 vishnu pobox com wrote:
> > This is off-topic.  If you want types with exact bit-widths then you
> > can write autoconf macros.
> >
> > What we are discussing is whether glib can accomodate five types of
> > integers instead of four: char, short, int, long, *and* llong.
> 
> why does glib make such a point of creating gint8, gint16, etc.? In
> fact, this is a good comparison.  There exist the smaller types because
> they represent values of those sizes, for struct packing and other
> reasons.

Hey, i'm not saying that exact-width types are "bad".  i'm just
saying that exact-width types are a discussion for autoconf
maintainers and off-topic for this thread.  (In fact, the exact
width types in glib are derived by configure!)

> That makes me wonder what the reason is then for both INT and LONG
> GValues, since they're the same on all the archs I know of.

The reason that glib supports both INT and LONG is so the glib API
doesn't change even if the exact bit-widths do change.

-- 
Victory to the Divine Mother!!
  http://sahajayoga.org