Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: [snip] > > Using the same data types allows at least to choose the appropriate > > typedefs without caring about the underlying OS. > > It doesn't. It is unsafe to assume it in general and it's even more > unsafe for MIPS where we have at least three C models and you do not know > in advance which one will a person doing a build choose. It's knowing the ABI vs. ABI + OS (or OS-specific ABI-variant, if you want to call it different). > > > What programmer's POV? Does a programmer write a program for MIPS? No, > > > unless he writes a kernel or a libc. A normal programmer just codes a > > > program in C for a *nix-type system and if he wants any portability, he > > > needs to follow universal guidelines. > > > > World isn't as perfect as you claim. And for non-broken code it's > > nearly irrelevant if the 64 bit integer type is called "long" or > > "long long". > > World isn't perfect, but it would be beneficial if at least we tried to > keep it as good as we can. I agree. And I believe in the "least surprise" principle, which means we shouldn't deviate from widely known conventions without good reason. I still don't see the advantage of a 64 bit long in n32. Thiemo
