GMP and 64-bit systems

[NightStrike]

On 6/1/08, Joerg Arndt <arndt at jjj.de> wrote:
> * librik at panix.com <librik at panix.com> [Jun 01. 2008 18:25]:
> > A conclusion:  any integer type intended to be 32 bits on 32-bit
> > systems and 64 bits on 64-bit systems cannot be a basic C type.  It
> > must be a typedef type, whose identity is controlled by an #ifdef in
> > some header file.
>
> Yes that's the price for the full adherence to the standard.  I
> suggest sticking to LP64 (and saying so in the doc!), and, when it's
> not there, bailing out with an error (or warning).
> Or falling back to a safe but potentially slow code branch.

So you don't want to support Win64 at all?  Oh, how delightful...

If you don't understand *why* Microsoft went with the model they
chose, then maybe you should take a few minutes to learn.  They have
published several informative documents on msdn which explain -- in
great detail -- why they went with int=long=32.  Before you just make
blanket statements (and repeat yourself 5 times with the same blanket
statement) that a model is not "sane", you would do well to know a bit
more about what you are evaluating.

It was said perfectly well earlier in this thread -- if you assume
that you can freely cast between pointers and longs, you are a bad C
programmer and you are writing bad C code.  End of story.

Use size_t for unsigned, ssize_t for signed, and intptr_t for any data
structure that is storing a pointer.  Why is that so difficult?