Re: Using int32_t instead of IV for code

[Dan Sugalski]

At 05:32 PM 9/23/2001 +0200, Bart Lateur wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Sep 2001 06:27:27 +0300 [ooh I'm far behind on these lists],
>Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
>
> >I always see this claim ("why would you use 64 bits unless you really
> >need them big, they must be such a waste") being bandied around, without
> >much hard numbers to support the claims.
>
> >Unless you are thinking of huge and/or multidimensional arrays
> >of tightly packed integers, I don't think you should care.
>
>We're talking bytecode. That will indeed be a case of "huge arrays of
>tightly packed integers".

For bytecode, it's not a big problem, certainly not one I'm worried about. 
Machines that want 64-bit ints have, likely speaking, more than enough 
memory to handle the larger bytecode.

                                        Dan

--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski                          even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED]                         have teddy bears and even
                                      teddy bears get drunk