This is the mail archive of the libc-hacker@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the glibc project.
Note that libc-hacker is a closed list. You may look at the archives of this list, but subscription and posting are not open.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
> and in 2002-10-23 commit lots of types changed from long to long long > on 64-bit arches (similarly with ul -> ull and l* -> ll*). That was intentional on my part, removing gratuitous source differences between 32- and 64-bit platforms. But I was only thinking about C, where the width of the type is the only thing that matters, not C++ where names matter. > My scripts were only checking > {alpha,i386,ia64,mips32,powerpc32,powerpc64,s390,s390x,sparc,sparc64,x86_64 -m32,x86_64 -m64}-linux, > are there any other 64-bit ports supported in glibc? Don't think so. > powerpc64-linux port did not exist at that time, so if we wanted to avoid > changes to it now, we could copy the current CVS generic/bits/types.h > to sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/powerpc/bits/types.h, but I think it will > be better to match other 64-bit arches. I tend to agree, but the PPC32 and PPC64 port maintainers should say something. Modulo port maintainers' concerns I think your changes are fine.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |