Re: setsockopt() compat issue

[Johnny Billquist <bqt%softjar.se@localhost>]

Manuel Bouyer wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 01:07:22PM +0200, Johnny Billquist wrote:
> > > I don't understand the point of your argument. What *purpose* is
> > > served by making "int" 64 bits wide? What problem are you trying to
> > > solve?
> > How about the fact that the C standard says that an int should be the 
> > "native word size of the hardware"?
>
> And how do you define "native word size" ? on x86_64 you have instructions
> to manipulate 8, 16, 32 and 64bits quantities, so all could be considered
> native.

Hey! Don't shoot the messenger.
But no, I wouldn't consider them all "native". The size of the registers 
is what I'd define as native.
It's not the same as what sizes of data that you have instructions that 
can operate on.

        Johnny