On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 11:33 AM, dexen deVries <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Wednesday 25 of April 2012 15:32:06 erik quanstrom wrote: > > also, in case you missed it sizeof(int)==sizeof(long)==4 on both 32 > > and 64 bit plan 9, so recompiled programs won't get bigger integers > > just for the recompiling. > > > pardon silly question, but... why, on 64bit machine, P9 uses 32bit ints and > longs? > > my impression is, int was supposed to match machine's preferred (best > performance etc.) integeral datatype, and long was supposed to be enough to > hold a pointer? (i.e., sizeof(long) >= sizeof(void*)) Re "supposed" if you mean according to say Standard C, no. Even so-called K&R C was not black and white regarding this per se. Standard C only provided minimum sizes. Indeed, there is often preferences, but that's usually up to vendors, and lots of it yield *-defined behaviors. As it should. There is also the issue of that, if, you really want a 64-bit integer, then, using int is certainly moving towards a direction of a programming error, since int does not often yield such a beast, even on so-called systems which could provide it. C99 provides for stuff such as int_least64_t for those who really need such. -- Greg Comeau / 4.3.10.1 with C++0xisms now in beta! Comeau C/C++ ONLINE ==> http://www.comeaucomputing.com/tryitout World Class Compilers: Breathtaking C++, Amazing C99, Fabulous C90. Comeau C/C++ with Dinkumware's Libraries... Have you tried it?
