Re^12: 64-bit *nix/gcc expertise required

[BrowserUk]

in reply to Re^11: 64-bit *nix/gcc expertise required
in thread 64-bit *nix/gcc expertise required (THIS IS NOT OFF TOPIC!)

you had problems understanding my style,

Oh contriare!. I understood your "style". Hence my characterisation.

It's not? What's the size of an int in MS's 64-bit compiler?

If you don't know that, what makes you think that you are in a position to offer advice?

And what the f*** has int got to do with the matter. (And (please) don't answer that, because the answer is (obviously) "Nothing!").

You're misunderstanding of the purpose and function of compiler intrinsics is both manifest and legion.

The whole point of ptrdiff_t (and all such compiler intrinsics) is that they are intelligent definitions that morph with respect to the compilation target. Hence, your question and your conflation, is manifest.

Proudly. I don't just give the answer, I explain what the problem is. Teach a man to fish and all that.

Ha! You really believe that don't you.

Heads up, you're wrong. On just about every level possible.

Now please. Just stop talking.

[ysth]

All you did was rewrite my code in in a totally incomprehensible and incompatible way

Just like you had problems understanding my style, I had problems understanding yours.

Oh contriare!. I understood your "style". Hence my characterisation.

All hail BrowserUk, understander of the "totally incomprehensible".

[Anonymous Monk]

All hail ysth, master of the burn, holy flame extender, example for all to follow

[Anonymous Monk]

You see some conflict between understanding his "style", and finding the code it produces incomprehensible.

Perhaps English isn't your first language?

[ysth]

In context (ikegami being certain he'd solved the Understanderer's problem, the Understanderer being equally certain he hadn't), it was clearly a claim that the "incomprehensible" was Understood.

[ikegami]

If you don't know that, what makes you think that you are in a position to offer advice?

So I should know the answer...

And what the f*** has int got to do with the matter.

...but the answer is irrelevant?

Answering a question about writing portable C does not require knowing the specifics of the size of an integer in a certain compiler.

Update: Simplified post.

[Anonymous Monk]

Up to your old tricks again.

Post above content prior to unannotated modification:

If you don't know that, what makes you think that you are in a position to offer advice?

And what the f*** has int got to do with the matter.

Well which one is it? That I should know the answer or that the answer doesn't matter?

And what the f*** has int got to do with the matter.

I'm not allowed to ask questions too? How egotistical.

You seem to have forgotten to answer my question. What's the size of an int in MS's 64-bit compiler?

If you don't know that, what makes you think that you are in a position to offer advice?

Answering a question about writing portable C does not require knowing the specifics of the size of an integer in a certain compiler.

We know that. So why are you asking? Is it beyond your capabilities to follow the links in the OP to the threads that discussed LLP64 v LP64. Another thread which you blustered your way into claiming expertise you obviously do not have.

And incapable of looking it up.

Take the OP at his word. He, nor we, are interest in your puerile attempts to save face.

[ikegami]

So why are you asking?

Because I want to know.

And incapable of looking it up.

Correct, but not for lack of trying. It's not specified in the same source's documentation for int.