Re: [PATCH] cobol: Do not overload int64_t, overload long and long long.

2025-04-05 Thread Iain Sandoe
> On 20 Mar 2025, at 19:28, Robert Dubner wrote: > > Although I am confused about how _int64_t can be anything but a 64-bit > signed integer, and because it is my understanding that long and long long > really *do* change from platform to platform, 32b Darwin/macOS had 64b integers as “long l

Re: [PATCH] cobol: Do not overload int64_t, overload long and long long.

2025-04-04 Thread NightStrike
On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 15:41 Iain Sandoe wrote: > > > > On 20 Mar 2025, at 19:28, Robert Dubner wrote: > > > > Although I am confused about how _int64_t can be anything but a 64-bit > > signed integer, and because it is my understanding that long and long > long > > really *do* change from plat

RE: [PATCH] cobol: Do not overload int64_t, overload long and long long.

2025-03-24 Thread Robert Dubner
Although I am confused about how _int64_t can be anything but a 64-bit signed integer, and because it is my understanding that long and long long really *do* change from platform to platform, I am loathe to stand in the way of your MacOS progress. It passes my full set of tests, and "make check-co