On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 13:15, John Harrison <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 2:50 PM, Andy Dougherty <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 24 May 2010, John Harrison wrote:
>>
>> > My GSoC is getting underway with improvements to the NCI system. After
>> > reading over the current work and suggestions for the NCI system I have
>> > come
>> > up with the following suggestions/improvements to the current system.
>> >
>>
>> > Base Data Types:
>>
>> > s = short - 16 bit
>> > l = long - 32 bit
>> > i = int
>> > q = long long - 64 bit
>>
>> I think these specific type-size mappings will be confusing, at best, on
>> systems where those C data types are of different sizes. For example,
>> it is perfectly legal to have a system where short, int, and long are
>> all 64 bit. I think if you want to specify a particular size, you might
>> be best off including that explicitly in the name, e.g. something like
>> i16, i32, or i64, as you suggest below, and leave the 's', 'i', and 'l'
>> to simply mean the native type, whatever that size might be.
>
> Thats not strictly true. According the C standard, short, long, long long
> and char all have defined limits (in <limits.h>
>
there is no 'long long' in the C89 standard.
~jerry
_______________________________________________
http://lists.parrot.org/mailman/listinfo/parrot-dev
