"Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belón via GitGitGadget"
[off-list ref] writes:
+test_lazy_prereq SIZE_T_IS_64BIT '
+ test 8 -eq "$(build_option sizeof-size_t)"
+'
+
test_lazy_prereq LONG_IS_64BIT '
test 8 -le "$(build_option sizeof-long)"
'
In the longer run, LONG_IS_64BIT wants to be renamed to indicate
that it is at least 64-bit long. LONG_HAS_64BIT, perhaps?
Obviously it can be left outside the scope of this series.
Hi Junio,
On Fri, 29 Oct 2021, Junio C Hamano wrote:
"Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belón via GitGitGadget"
[off-list ref] writes:
quoted
+test_lazy_prereq SIZE_T_IS_64BIT '
+ test 8 -eq "$(build_option sizeof-size_t)"
+'
+
test_lazy_prereq LONG_IS_64BIT '
test 8 -le "$(build_option sizeof-long)"
'
In the longer run, LONG_IS_64BIT wants to be renamed to indicate
that it is at least 64-bit long. LONG_HAS_64BIT, perhaps?
Or `LONG_AT_LEAST_64BIT`. It does look as if the current users are asking
for that, not for precisely 64-bit.
Obviously it can be left outside the scope of this series.
Definitely. The patch series already grew from 5 to 8 patches. We really
need to be more conscious of scope here.
Ciao,
Dscho