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

From: Joshua Juran <jjuran@gmail.com>
Date: Aug 3, 2010, 17:37 UTC
Message-ID: <2D8CEA56-63B7-425E-A92B-89E2D1548679@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20100803124456.GA11608@coredump.intra.peff.net>

On Aug 3, 2010, at 5:44 AM, Jeff King wrote:

Show 19 quoted lines

> On Tue, Aug 03, 2010 at 02:32:06AM -0700, Joshua Juran wrote:
>
>>> - use signed long long as our git_time_t (I think long is less  
>>> system
>>> dependent then long but I could be wrong)
>>
>> Obviously you mean "I think long long is less system dependent than
>> long".
>>
>> 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.

Josh