Re: 32-bit profiling counts?

[arnold]

"Andrew J. Schorr" <aschorr@telemetry-investments.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 07, 2020 at 12:18:44AM -0600, arnold@skeeve.com wrote:
> > > and we'd have to review the impact of changing that type since the field
> > > is used for other purposes in different contexts.
> > 
> > Yes, exactly.  Also the possible increase in the size of the NODE
> > struct.
>
> Unless I'm confused, this is actually in INSTRUCTION, not NODE.  On a 32-bit
> platform, I think the INSTRUCTION size would likely grow by 4 bytes.

You're right.

> > I suspect that moving to an unsigned type would break things,
> > but that moving to 64 bit long would cause less breakage. We'd
> > still have to check if the values gets printed with the right
> > format in all the right places.
>
> It passes "make check" with int64_t and uint64_t, but one would certainly
> want to look more closely. And yes, the print formats would need to be
> adjusted.

I went with long long. :-)  The patch will get pushed to the repo
shortly.

Arnold