From: Joshua Juran Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2010 17:37:26 GMT Subject: Re: Back-dating commits--way back--for constitution.git 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: > 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 ), 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