Subject: Re: long long vs long
From: [email-masked] (Harry Broomhall)

22 Jul 1998 10:16:18 -0700
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
References: <73B8DC108A44D111B44700805FF5C69D01E51F@cware>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: Graham Murray <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]

Graham Murray said:
> 
> This is probably a silly question, but rather than having long long for
> 64 bit, why was long not made 64bit? The standard (AFAIK) states that
> short <= int <= long.  So, it should be possible for long to be 64 bit
> rather than 32. This would give a simple progression from 8bit chars to
> 64bit longs.

   This is a frequent question.  I am told that while it would
be thoreticaly a good idea, so much existing code would break as
to make it unviable.  (This from a member of the C9x committee.)

   Regards,
       Harry.

-
For help on using this list (especially unsubscribing), send a message to
"[email-masked]" with one line of text: "help".