From:	michael AT weiser DOT saale-net DOT de (Michael Weiser)
Subject:	Re: long long vs long
28 Jul 1998 09:07:16 -0700 :
Message-ID:	<35be955e.2235784.cygnus.gnu-win32@mail>
References:	<901200141 DOT 0020725 DOT 0 AT office DOT demon DOT net>
Mime-Version:	1.0
To:	Timothy Writer <Tim DOT Writer AT ftlsol DOT com>
Cc:	gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com

Hello Timothy,

You wrote:

[SNIP]
>> Unfortunately not. I didn't know that this matters so much.
>> 
>> BTW: Do you love splitting hairs? ;)
>
>In defense of the original poster, this is not splitting hairs.  You yourself 
>invoked the _Standard_ to assert:
>
>    1.  short is 16 bits and long is 32 bits
>    2.  a conforming implementation cannot use a 64 bit long
>
>Both statements are incorrect and such commonly held misbeliefs are a
>frequent source of portability problems.  Since this group is very much about
>portability, its important not to spread misinformation where portability is
>concerned.
Okay okay, I said Jehova and now everyone is throwing stones at me. ;)


I now know that my statement about the standard was thoughtless,
sorry. In my little world I thought that longs are 32 bits and that
almost all code relys on this. I simply didn't know about the world
around my little universe. :)

So sorry and till the next mindless mistake...

Micha
-
For help on using this list (especially unsubscribing), send a message to
"gnu-win32-request AT cygnus DOT com" with one line of text: "help".

- Raw text -