Expand debug to contain more than 31 cases

[Kornel Benko]

Am Mon, 25 Apr 2022 14:11:18 +0200
schrieb Pavel Sanda <sanda at lyx.org>:

> On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 10:10:26AM +0200, Kornel Benko wrote:
> > Am Sun, 24 Apr 2022 21:45:13 +0200
> > schrieb Pavel Sanda <sanda at lyx.org>:
> > 
> > > On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 01:56:20PM +0200, Kornel Benko wrote:
> > > > Try to use
> > > > 	$ lyx -dbg
> > > > it should display
> > > > 	...
> > > > 	4294967296   debug ...
> > > > then 1L would be correct.  
> > > 
> > > Seems to be correct now.
> > > 
> > > > > > +// Make sure at compile time that sizeof(unsigned long long) >= 8
> > > > > > +typedef char p__LINE__[ (sizeof(unsigned long long) > 7) ? 1 : -1];    
> > > > > 
> > > > > long long is supposed to be able to represent values between -(2^63 -1) to 2^63
> > > > > -1 so I do not think this check is necessary.  
> > > > 
> > > > I wanted to be sure ...  
> > > 
> > > I do not see any ambiguity here. Mention of long long int goes back at least to 
> > > ANSI C norm from 1998 and the range of 2^64 is already there.
> > > 
> > > Pavel
> > 
> > Pavel, I'd like to see the output of the following c++ source
> > 	#include <stdint.h>
> > 
> > compiled with
> > 	$ c++ -E -g3
> 
> The machine where it broke shows this:
> https://pastebin.com/ubZVNKdr

The output shows that your machine defines uin64_t as
	typedef unsigned long int uint64_t;
at /usr/include/stdint.h:56

So, the include of "stdint.h" would be sufficient.

> > because I prefer to use something like uint64_t over 'unsigned long long'.
> 
> I dislike it because we use long long on bunch of different places in our
> code already. This is introducing not yet used type depending on special header.
> This might break on whatever strange arch ppl try to compile for no obvious gain.
> 
> > Other than this, if the test is really too itching, I am not opposing too strong to
> > remove it.
> 
> I just pointed out that long long needs to contain 64 bit range as defined by C(++)
> standard.

At about the same time as stdint.h was introduced to make the int-types portable.
(At least, that is how I understood)

> Can you explain to me what is the reason for "weakly opposing" it?

Yes, the code does no harm, only gave me a guaranty.
I read somewhere that 64 bit for long long was a 'should' and not a 'must'.
But int64_t _has_ to contain valid 64 bits.

> Pavel

	Kornel

-- 
lyx-devel mailing list
lyx-devel at lists.lyx.org
http://lists.lyx.org/mailman/listinfo/lyx-devel
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: Digitale Signatur von OpenPGP
URL: <http://lists.lyx.org/pipermail/lyx-devel/attachments/20220425/de1faba0/attachment-0001.asc>