Re: [patch] changing lua_Number to int64_t

[Marc Balmer <marc%msys.ch@localhost>]

Am 17.11.13 04:49, schrieb Terry Moore:
> I believe that if you want the Lua scripts to be portable across NetBSD
> deployments, you should choose a well-known fixed width.

I don't see this as very important.  Lua scripts will hardly depend on
the size of an integer.

> Watch out, by the way, for compiled scripts; I have not checked Lua 5.x, but
> you may find if not careful that the compiled binary is not loadable on
> machines with different choices for LP64, ILP32, etc. This is somewhat
> independent of the choice of lua_Number mapping.

Bytecode is not portable.  Not even between userland and kernel Lua on
the same machine.

> 
> --Terry
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: tech-kern-owner%NetBSD.org@localhost 
>> [mailto:tech-kern-owner%NetBSD.org@localhost] On
>> Behalf Of Lourival Vieira Neto
>> Sent: Saturday, November 16, 2013 22:36
>> To: Christos Zoulas
>> Cc: tech-kern%netbsd.org@localhost
>> Subject: Re: [patch] changing lua_Number to int64_t
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 10:44 PM, Christos Zoulas 
>> <christos%zoulas.com@localhost>
>> wrote:
>>> On Nov 16,  9:30pm, lourival.neto%gmail.com@localhost (Lourival Vieira Neto)
> wrote:
>>> -- Subject: Re: [patch] changing lua_Number to int64_t
>>>
>>> | On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 8:52 PM, Christos Zoulas 
>>> <christos%astron.com@localhost>
>> wrote:
>>> | > In article <52872B0C.5080309%msys.ch@localhost>, Marc Balmer  
>>> <marc%msys.ch@localhost>
>> wrote:
>>> | >>Changing the number type to int64_t is certainly a good idea.  Two
>>> | >>questions, however:
>>> | >
>>> | > Why not intmax_t?
>>> |
>>> | My only argument is that int64_t has a well-defined width and, AFAIK,
>>> | intmax_t could vary. But I have no strong feelings about this. Do you
>>> | think intmax_t would be better?
>>>
>>> Bigger is better. And you can use %jd to print which is a big win.
>>
>> I agree that bigger is better and %jd is much better then "%" PRI/SCN.
>> But don't you think that to know the exact width is even better?
>>
>> Regards,
>> --
>> Lourival Vieira Neto
>