Time for 64-bit longs?

[news at cit-vax.UUCP]

Organization : California Institute of Technology
Keywords: 
From: jon at oddhack.Caltech.Edu (Jon Leech)
Path: oddhack!jon

In article <263 at elxsi.UUCP> sherm at elxsi.UUCP (Michael Sherman) writes:
>In article <1643 at cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> I write:
>>Why not have
>>short=16 bits, int=32 bits, long=64 bits?
>
>When we began our first Unix port to the ELXSI we tried your suggestion
>and found that it was actually *rare* to find a program that would still
>work with 64-bit longs.  

	I remember that. All of MY programs worked ok :-)

>
>After repeatedly bashing our heads against horrible debugging problems in 
>third-party's 100,000 line applications we finally saw the light and 
>switched to a 32-bit long and a 64-bit long long.
>
>Moral arguments aside, we're stuck with int==long.

	Moral arguments aside, int != long on most 80x86 and some 68000
implementations. I think what you're really stuck with is long == 32 bits.

    -- Jon Leech (jon at csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon)
    Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group
    __@/