Re: long_long and ulong_long deprecated

[stefan]

On 16 Sep 2001, Marius Vollmer wrote:

> I think this:
> 
> | The idea is that libguile itself does not need a "long long" type,
> | but provides support for it (in the form of conversion functions,
> | say) when it is available.

I agree.

> What would the description of "scm_t_longlong" be?  "The type
> ...
> 
> To summarize, the reasons given by Stefan for adding something
> `scm_t_longlong' are not strong enough.  There might be reasons, but
> we haven't found them yet.  (And I would prefer it if we wouldn't find
> any.)

In my opinion the "scm_t_longlong" type would be just the same as the
HAVE_LONG_LONGS before, but with the possibility to compile it with yet
another compiler on a different platform.

Does the typedef itself harm any of your design goals ?

The gcc for MinGW supports a "long long" type as well as the Cygwin gcc.
Thus you will have a HAVE_LONG_LONGS there including all those
additional functions dealing with it. When using the MSVC for compiling
Guile you have problems producing *the same output* because this compiler
does not know about a "long long" type. The correct replacement is the
"__int64" type. If you do not have the mentioned typedef the source code
is not only "platform" dependent but *also* "compiler" dependent.

Maybe this is yet another issue in this discussion...

Cheers,
        address@hidden