Re: int64_t vs long long
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 18:55:47 -0700
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 6:29 PM, Yang Tse <yangsita_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 ?
Received on 2008-06-13