http://d-programming-language.org/interfaceToC.html

Originally the table just showed D and C types, the 32/64 bit columns weren't there. On my last commit I had this:

D type | C type

c_long (in core.stdc.config) | long
c_ulong (in core.stdc.config) | unsigned long
long | long long
ulong | unsigned long long

But now this table seems to have been mixed up and 32/64 bit columns added, and c_long magically disappeared:

D type | C 32bit | C 64 bit
long | long long | long
c_ulong (in core.stdc.config) | ulong
ulong | unsigned long long | unsigned long

As far as I know, the correct table should be without those 32/64 bit columns and instead be this:

D type | C type:

c_long (in core.stdc.config) | long
c_ulong (in core.stdc.config) | unsigned long
long | long long
ulong | unsigned long long

C's long and unsigned long might be different on Windows and Linux 32 and 64 bit versions, hence c_long and c_ulong from core.stdc.config.

Is my interpretation correct, so I can make a pull to fix this?

On 2011-08-05 20:36, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> http://d-programming-language.org/interfaceToC.html
>
> Originally the table just showed D and C types, the 32/64 bit columns
> weren't there. On my last commit I had this:
>
> D type | C type
>
> c_long (in core.stdc.config) | long
> c_ulong (in core.stdc.config) | unsigned long
> long | long long
> ulong | unsigned long long
>
> But now this table seems to have been mixed up and 32/64 bit columns
> added, and c_long magically disappeared:
>
> D type | C 32bit | C 64 bit
> long | long long | long
> c_ulong (in core.stdc.config) | ulong
> ulong | unsigned long long | unsigned long
>
> As far as I know, the correct table should be without those 32/64 bit
> columns and instead be this:
>
> D type | C type:
>
> c_long (in core.stdc.config) | long
> c_ulong (in core.stdc.config) | unsigned long
> long | long long
> ulong | unsigned long long
>
> C's long and unsigned long might be different on Windows and Linux 32
> and 64 bit versions, hence c_long and c_ulong from core.stdc.config.
>
> Is my interpretation correct, so I can make a pull to fix this?

Yes.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg