Eric Blake wrote:
> I fixed the typo (CHECK only takes a single token argument):
Shame on me.
> > + CHECK (int64_t)
>
> I didn't touch this, but should we still want to cater to C89 platforms
> that lack 64 bit integers
Right you are. Yes, you cannot generally assume the presence of working
int
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Bruno Haible on 5/31/2009 1:51 PM:
> Eric Blake wrote:
>> I noticed you just pushed test-alignof.c. Should this file also check
>> 'long double', and (where available) 'long long int', particularly since
>> these types often have smaller
Eric Blake wrote:
> I noticed you just pushed test-alignof.c. Should this file also check
> 'long double', and (where available) 'long long int', particularly since
> these types often have smaller alignment than size?
Good point here as well. I'm adding them:
2009-05-31 Bruno Haible
Eric Blake wrote:
> So if I understand correctly, you are trading one set of portability
> problems (the AIX workaround guesses wrong for char and short) for another
> (alignof() must not be used to initialize an enumerator, but can be used
> in all other contexts). Shouldn't this at least be docu
