Re: [dev] [st] why is Glyph.fg, Glyph.bg long?

Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

From: Alexander S. <alex0player_AT_gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 17:51:50 +0300

2013/11/13 Thorsten Glaser <tg_AT_mirbsd.de>:
> Roberto E. Vargas Caballero dixit:
>
>>long, because long is at least 32 bits for sure, but int can be only 16
>
> On POSIX, int is a minimum 32 bit data type.
Also, stdint.h.

-- 
At your service,
Alexander S.

Received on Wed Nov 13 2013 - 15:51:50 CET

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: patrick295767 patrick295767: "[dev] Possible improvement on slock - suid"
Previous message: Thorsten Glaser: "Re: [dev] [st] why is Glyph.fg, Glyph.bg long?"
In reply to: Thorsten Glaser: "Re: [dev] [st] why is Glyph.fg, Glyph.bg long?"
Next in thread: Roberto E. Vargas Caballero: "Re: [dev] [st] why is Glyph.fg, Glyph.bg long?"

Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Wed Nov 13 2013 - 16:00:08 CET