Trent Nelson wrote:
>> Mark Dickinson <dickinsm <at> gmail.com> writes:
>>> Fair enough. My twisted mind was trying to find ways that size_t
>>> might be something other than long or long long, but that seems
>>> unlikely...
>> There has been a report where sizeof(size_t) < sizeof(long).
>> It breaks things in the dict implementation:
>> http://bugs.python.org/issue1646068
>>
>> < On the system I'm porting to, ints and pointers (and
>> ssize_t) are 32-bit, but longs and long longs are 64-bit. >
>
> I wonder what system that is; sizeof(size_t) & sizeof(void *) <
> sizeof(long|long long) is quite peculiar, no?
I've worked on a DSP where TI were forced to define a 'byte' as 16 bits
long because the smallest chunk of memory you could address was 16 bits
and the C standard says that sizeof(char) == 1 byte. Fortunately most
documentation for that chip talked about chars or MAUs (Minimum
Addressable Units) instead of confusing everyone by actually calling the
16-bit chunks bytes.
Anyway, once you get into chips with separate code and data buses, I can
quite easily see configurations where the program bus is only 32-bits
while the data bus is 64-bits.
However, so long as whatever solution you come up with can be tweaked in
pyconfig.h (is that the right file?) to do the right thing on such odd
platforms, it should be fine.
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Brisbane, Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.boredomandlaziness.org
_______________________________________________
Python-3000 mailing list
Python-3000@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
