Re: int64_t vs long long
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 03:29:00 +0200
2008/6/13, Daniel Stenberg wrote:
> I think there's a theoretical risk that long long isn't the same size as
> int64_t since long long seems to be defined as "at least 64 bits" in C99.
Initially I'll only use "long long" if the size as reported by
sizeof() is actually 8, else the other data types will be checked.
Besides 'long long', '__longlong', 'signed __int64', 'long' and
'int64_t' does anyone remember other data types that _might_ be "at
least 64 bits" and signed ?
-- -=[Yang]=-Received on 2008-06-13