On Monday, 18 July 2016 09:49:37 CEST Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 10:47:12AM +0200, Pino Toscano wrote: > > I still don't understand why we need to handle values bigger than int > > (as in C int, i.e. signed 32 bits) at all -- neither it is actually > > needed, nor it would be coherent in 32bit vs 64bit builds. > > If that's what you decide then that is fine too. My test patch > checked that 63 bit integers could be returned (on 64 bit arch) but we > can drop that test. Now that I think more about it, allowing more than 31bit integers as 'int' would cause problems later on; let's take for example the handling of memsize in few OCaml tools: [ "-m"; "--memsize" ], Getopt.Int ("mb", set_memsize), ... later on, in the C implementation of Guestfs.set_memsize there is int memsize = Int_val (memsizev); this would truncated when extracted, so not much useful at this point already; even when changing the above, what follows is: r = guestfs_set_memsize (g, memsize); considering the C API takes a 32bit signed integer, it would be truncated anyway. In the end, allowing big integers for Getopt.Int/Set_int is not really doable/worth it. -- Pino Toscano
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.