This is the mail archive of the
cygwin@sourceware.cygnus.com
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: long long vs long
- To: gnu-win32 at cygnus dot com
- Subject: Re: long long vs long
- From: Robert dot Cross at scottish-newcastle dot co dot uk
- Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 08:59:37 +0100 (GDT)
nleroy@norland.com wrote:
#Technically, it doesn't make sense, at least in the PC world, where
#all processors are <=32bits.
PICKY_MODE = TRUE
surely not *all* PC processors - what about the Alpha's? I realise that
they're not really widespread, but they are out there. I suppose you could
also count PowerPC in that vein.
PICKY_MODE = FALSE
#Probably the more pervasive reason, however, is that there exists A
#LOT of code out there which expects sizeof(long)==4. It's sort-of an
#un-official C standard. In particular, legacy code dealing with
#networking, etc., is frequently very loaded with such assumptions.
#IIRC, the original CRAY C compiler used a 32-bit long and a 64-bit
#int, just because so much code had this expectation.
Yes, and just to confuse the issue, the later compilers used 48bit as the
default. Although you could say '-i64' on the command line to promote these
variables
all to 64bit.
#IMHO: C should have included standard data sizes, as well as it's generic
types. It
#would have made many things a lot simpler.
Agreed. Personally I cannot see a problem with :
short = 8bits, int=16bits, long=32bits, (long long = 64 bits)
other than possible problems when Merced et al are around, rumour has it that
this
is 128bit native? So what would this be - "long long long" perhaps?
Bob Cross.