Re: CVS commit: src

[Lourival Vieira Neto <lneto%netbsd.org@localhost>]

On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Christos Zoulas <christos%astron.com@localhost> 
wrote:
> In article 
> <CALHoKCbNO1CGV067xXzzp249P+moA21FtqYfqkuVRPnjQZgnHA%mail.gmail.com@localhost>,
> Lourival Vieira Neto  <lneto%netbsd.org@localhost> wrote:
>>Hi Valery,
>>
>>On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Valery Ushakov <uwe%stderr.spb.ru@localhost> 
>>wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 11:45:15 -0200, Lourival Vieira Neto wrote:
>>>
>>>> Also, moving to intmax_t, would help in string library. It needs a
>>>> length modifier for string.format (LUA_INTFRMLEN). AFAIK, there is no
>>>> length modifier defined for int64_t. Using intmax_t we could just use
>>>> "j".
>>>
>>> There is: PRId64 &c.
>>
>>I think PRI/SCNd64 are conversion specifiers. In practice, I think
>>they will always expand to the same thing. But the standard
>>differentiates these two kind of specifiers. Doesn't it?
>
> They don't. On i386 for example PRId64 expands to "lld" and on amd64
> it expands to "ld".

I mean, they will expand to the same "type". That is, 'conversion
specifiers' and 'length specifiers' are the same thing in practice,
but two different things on the standard. That is what I understood
reading it, anyway.

So, is it alright to change lua_Number to intmax_t or we should move
this discussion to tech-kern again?

Regards,
-- 
Lourival Vieira Neto