Richard Biener writes: > > The following is my current idea on progressing on the HOST_WIDE_INT > removal ... > And HOST_WIDEST_FAST_INT for which > I don't have a very good suggestion other than either keeping > it, unconditionally using 'long' (thus simply remove > use_long_long_for_widest_fast_int and handling). The fast_[u]int64_t > types and friends don't seem to be very "useful". > > Any comments?
Hard-coding long will probably be problematic for builds on hosts with sizeof(long) < sizeof(void*), e.g. x86_64-w64-mingw32. There you really need to use *int64_t or long long. /Mikael
