Subject: Re: long long vs long
From: [email-masked] (Michael Weiser)

23 Jul 1998 02:23:32 -0700
Message-ID: <35b73b67.3231426.cygnus.gnu-win32@mail>
References: <73B8DC108A44D111B44700805FF5C69D01E51F@cware>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: [email-masked]

Hi Graham,

You wrote:

>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.
No because the standard says
short == 16 bit
long  == 32 bit
int   == 16 or 32 depending on the machine's architecture

For example: Under DOS int is 16 bit while under Win32 und UN*X it is
32 bit.
So there's no way for long to be 64 bit while conforming to the
standard.

bye

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