Re: int64_t vs long long
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 10:19:54 +0100
Yang Tse 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 ?
quad_t, intmax_t, intptr_t, int_least64_t, int_fast64_t.
(Btw, unsigned variations are u_quad_t, u_int64_t).
Oh, and char, short, int, long, wchar_t etc. _might_ be at least 64 bits ;-)
Received on 2008-06-13