On 19.08.25 08:24, Michael Paquier wrote:
> While looking at the recent business with dynahash.c in [1], I have
> been reminded of the fact that this code still depends on long.
It's definitely a good idea to get rid of "long" usage. But you can
also replace it with long long instead of int64. I suppose this is a
stylistic question, but I would tend to use the intNN types only when I
need exactly that many bits.
Also, your patch changes from signed to unsigned types. Maybe that's
ok, but you didn't explain it.
