r175681 - Revert "intmax_t is long long on Darwin, not long."

[Hal Finkel]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "John McCall" <rjmccall at apple.com>
> To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>
> Cc: "Jordan Rose" <jordan_rose at apple.com>, cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 5:56:09 PM
> Subject: Re: r175681 - Revert "intmax_t is long long on Darwin, not long."
> 
> On Feb 20, 2013, at 2:42 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Jordan Rose" <jordan_rose at apple.com>
> >> To: cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
> >> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 4:28:41 PM
> >> Subject: r175681 - Revert "intmax_t is long long on Darwin, not
> >> long."
> >> 
> >> Author: jrose
> >> Date: Wed Feb 20 16:28:41 2013
> >> New Revision: 175681
> >> 
> >> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=175681&view=rev
> >> Log:
> >> Revert "intmax_t is long long on Darwin, not long."
> >> 
> >> 'long' and 'long long' are different for the purposes of mangling.
> >> This caused <rdar://problem/13254874>.
> > 
> > Can you please explain this? I understand the name-mangling
> > difference, but if long long is larger than long, then intmax_t
> > needs to be long long, no?
> 
> Jordan's commit message is imprecise;  he's only changing the x86-64
> Darwin platform.  On 32-bit platforms, intmax_t should definitely be
> 'long long'.
> 
> intmax_t is still not actually the largest type supported by the
> compiler —
> we do support int128_t on several platforms.
> 
> Anyway, in this case, our hands are tied by the existing behavior of
> GCC.

John, Jordan, thanks for the clarification!

 -Hal

> 
> John.