Time for 64-bit longs?

[tps at sdchem.UUCP]

In article <291 at mtxinu.UUCP> ed at mtxinu.UUCP (Ed Gould) writes:
>>Has anyone bit the bullet and gone to 64-bit longs?  I know Convex
>>has a monstrosity called a "long long" that's 64 bits; they leave
>>long as 32 bits, the same as int, apparently because it was too hard
>>to change all the Berkeley code that assumes long == int.  But it
>>seems the Vax architecture will soon require a 64-bit type at the
>>high end.
>
>The problem is not that the VAX code assumes int == long (it often
>does make that assumption, but those are bugs) but that C defines
>only two sizes of integer: long and short.  Int may be either,
>depending on the implementation, but it must be one or the other.
>Ed Gould                    mt Xinu, 2560 Ninth St., Berkeley, CA  94710  USA

Wrong.
(Perhaps this is an example of "if I've never seen anybody do it, I guess
there must be a law against it"?:)

K&R p. 34

	"...each compiler is free to interpret 'short' and 'long' as
	appropriate for its own hardware.
	...all you should count on is that 'short' is no longer than 'long'"












|| Tom Stockfisch, UCSD Chemistry	tps%chem at sdcsvax.UCSD