On Sat, 7 Jul 2001, Christoph Reichenbach wrote:
> Hmm, what do you mean by 'compatible' in this respect?
As in that's what GCC calls them :-)
> You should also try to avoid short, which is not supported natively (OK,
> it _is_, by processors who support the BWX instruction set extension, but
> careful compilers will not use this even though it is present in
> practically all systems today).
Hmm, so what happens when you try to read a two-byte chunk?
> second byte (and _not_ a u_int64_t* to the second byte, which you should
> try to avoid), you can just typecast to char* and increment by one.
Thanks, that's the answer I was hoping for. No, I want a char* not
an unaligned uint_64_t * :-).
> Hope this helps,
Yes, very much, thank you. Say, one more question: are there still compilers
about for < 64 bit machines which don't emulate 64-bit integers/64-bit math,
or can I assume autoconf will always be able to find me an int64_t and I'll
always be able to do all the >> + / ops I want to on it?
--
Brian
