kconfig_compiler4

[Nicolas Goutte]

On Wednesday 28 December 2005 18:07, Allen Winter wrote:
> On Monday 26 December 2005 14:32, Thomas Braxton wrote:
> > On Saturday 24 December 2005 08:15, Allen Winter wrote:
> > > Can you explain why the change?  kconfig_compiler already supported
> > > Int64 and UInt64 types so I don't understand the need for eliminating
> > > Int/UInt types.  I think *adding* support for Int32/UInt32 may make
> > > some sense, but removing Int/UInt doesn't seem necessary, nor optimal.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Allen
(...)
> I'm not sure why we should be specifying the number of bits of a
> configuration type.

Because it is the only sane way to store data in a machine-independant type 
(without using text)?

>
> Int types should eventually convert into the machine wordsize and Long
> types to the biggest integer you can get on the machine (which might be
> long long on some systems).
>
> My 2cents,
> Allen

Have a  nice day!