Time for 64-bit longs?

[rmtodd at uokmax.UUCP]

In article <629 at sdchema.sdchem.UUCP>, tps at sdchem.UUCP (Tom Stockfisch) writes:
> In article <291 at mtxinu.UUCP> ed at mtxinu.UUCP (Ed Gould) writes:
> >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.
> 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'"
Actually, I know of a compiler on which short, int, and long all have
different sizes.  On Alcor C on my TRS-80 Model I, short is 8 bits, int is
16 bits, and long 32 bits.  So yes, somebody out there does it.
(Granted, Alcor's C will never win any awards for portability because of its
library, but it's still a full C compiler.)
(Model I -- how's that for esoteric hardware? :-)
___________________________________________________________________________
Richard Todd
USSnail:820 Annie Court,Norman OK 73069
UUCP: {allegra!cbosgd|ihnp4}!okstate!uokmax!rmtodd