From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1MZAPK-0005KQ-HP
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 06 Aug 2009 17:21:54 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1MZAPG-0005IA-1d
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 06 Aug 2009 17:21:54 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=44316 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MZAPF-0005Hz-Ut
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 06 Aug 2009 17:21:49 -0400
Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:36718)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <lcapitulino@redhat.com>) id 1MZAPF-0001Xh-Ai
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 06 Aug 2009 17:21:49 -0400
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 18:21:39 -0300
From: Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20090806182139.27846117@doriath>
In-Reply-To: <4A7AE302.30304@redhat.com>
References: <1249566736-5020-1-git-send-email-lcapitulino@redhat.com>
	<1249566736-5020-4-git-send-email-lcapitulino@redhat.com>
	<4A7AE302.30304@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 3/3] Introduce QNumber data type
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
Cc: aliguori@us.ibm.com, filip.navara@gmail.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 17:04:50 +0300
Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com> wrote:

> On 08/06/2009 04:52 PM, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> > +
> > +typedef struct QNumber {
> > +    QObject base;
> > +    union {
> > +        int n_int;
> > +        int64_t n_int64;
> > +    } number;
> > +} QNumber;
> >    
> 
> Why not have an int64_t exclusively?

 Something I was wondering: why does get_expr() use int64_t
instead of uint64_t?

 As far as I can understand it uses strtoull() and strtoul() to
convert from the user's string and command handlers use 64-bits
values only for addresses and (signed) 32-bits for anything else.

 We are doing some int64_t to uint64_t conversions today...