[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [ft-devel] integer suffix abuse

From: Graham Asher
Subject: Re: [ft-devel] integer suffix abuse
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 17:49:35 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0

I very much doubt this does any harm; modern compilers will do the right thing. It won't do any harm to get rid of the L suffixes, but it is unlikely to make any difference at all to compiled size or performance on any platforms that matter.

Best regards,


On 24/06/2015 17:24, suzuki toshiya wrote:
Hmm, therefore, should we remove all constants using L suffix
directly, and use such constants as the macros which is defined
with appropriate suffix under the cpp-conditionals for 16-bit,
32-bit and 64-bit systems?


Alexei Podtelezhnikov wrote:
Hi All,

I think we abuse the suffix L in integer constants. I understand the
desire to make sure that very common 0x10000L is 32-bit to represent a
unit in 16.16 fixed-point representation. On modern 64-bit systems
that actually becomes an unnecessary 64-bit constant. Perhaps the
suffix was used with 16-bit systems in mind, but 0x10000 cannot fit
into 16-bit integer and will always be 32-bit even on 16-bit systems.

Am I missing something?


Freetype-devel mailing list
Freetype-devel mailing list

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]