Re: Back-dating commits--way back--for constitution.git

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Aug 3, 2010, 17:49 UTC
Message-ID: <20100803174904.GA28529@coredump.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <2D8CEA56-63B7-425E-A92B-89E2D1548679@gmail.com>

On Tue, Aug 03, 2010 at 10:37:26AM -0700, Joshua Juran wrote:

Show 13 quoted lines

> >>Does any system exist where long long is not 64 bits?  In any case,
> >>you can future-proof it by spelling it "int64_t".  That symbol is not
> >>guaranteed to exist (nor is <stdint.h>), but neither is the long long
> >>type in the first place.
> >
> >C99 specifies that "short" and "int" be at least 16 bits, that
> >"long" be
> >at least 32 bits, and that "long long" be at least 64 bits. See
> >section
> >5.2.4.2.1.
> 
> Right, but there's no guarantee that long long won't be *larger* than
> 64 bits.  Though maybe that wouldn't be a problem.

Ah, I took your statement to mean "at least". In this case, I don't think it would be a problem (we could just represent more times).

-Peff