# Int and int64

**URL:** <https://forum.juce.com/t/int-and-int64/7176>\
**Category:** General JUCE discussion\
**Created:** [July 18, 2011, 4:18pm UTC](https://forum.juce.com/t/int-and-int64/7176 "2011-07-18T16:18:33Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![dinaiz](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex026/user_avatar/forum.juce.com/dinaiz/32/182_2.png) [@dinaiz](https://forum.juce.com/u/dinaiz)\
**Post date:** [July 18, 2011, 4:18pm UTC](https://forum.juce.com/t/int-and-int64/7176/1 "2011-07-18T16:18:33Z")

</div>

Hi Jules !

I noticed that, to refer to a number of samples, in some parts of the code you use “int” and in some other parts you use “int64”.

For example :

```auto

```

vs

```auto

```

Well I guess one won’t have a 16MB+ buffer very often but wouldn’t that be better to have consitency ? Or do you prefer it that way, to save memory space ?  
I’m thinking about the case where one has a whole, long wave file, buffered in memory…

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![TheVinn](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex026/user_avatar/forum.juce.com/thevinn/32/806_2.png) [@TheVinn](https://forum.juce.com/u/TheVinn)\
**Post date:** [July 18, 2011, 4:50pm UTC](https://forum.juce.com/t/int-and-int64/7176/2 "2011-07-18T16:50:28Z")

</div>

> [@dinaiz](#):
>
> Well I guess one won’t have a 16MB+ buffer very often but wouldn’t that be better to have consitency ?

Nope, it’s right the way its written. And its not a 16MB+ buffer, its a 512MB+ buffer!

Typically whenever a block of samples are manipulated, they are measured by a 32-bit integer. But since we want to be able to deal with large audio files, offsets and total sample counts are usually specified with 64-bit integers.