Re: long_long and ulong_long deprecated

[Martin Grabmueller]

> From: stefan <address@hidden>
> Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2001 18:08:34 +0200 (CEST)
> 
> On Fri, 7 Sep 2001, Rob Browning wrote:
> 
> > stefan <address@hidden> writes:
> > 
> > > This is why I want you to ask to reintroduce a likewise typedef or
> > > "reverse-deprecate" the typdefs "long_long" and "ulong_long". I could
> > > verify the changes with the MSVC. I sent previous patches to Martin
> > > Grabmueller and Marius Vollmer containing the changes for long_long and
> > > ulong_long.
> > 
> > If we're going to support compilers that don't have the ISO type, then
> > it seems like we might need the type names, but we might want to
> > change them to match the current naming policy, i.e. something like
> > scm_t_longlong and scm_t_ulonglong.
> 
> I would be pleased with these two types, any comments, headaches, etc.
> except R.Browning and me ?

Hello list.

I plan to do what is necessary for this change.  That includes:

* Defining the types scm_t_longlong and scm_t_ulonglong as `long
  long'/`unsigned long long' or `__int64/__uint64', depending on the
  compiler (gcc/MSVC).  This should go into __scm.h, I suppose.

* Changing all uses in libguile core and the srfis of `long
  long'/`unsigned long long' to using these typedefs.

Any comments, thoughts or criticism?

Best regards,
  'martin