Subject: RE: long long vs long
From: [email-masked] (Martin Portmann)

23 Jul 1998 20:08:13 -0700
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
To: [email-masked]

   That's why portable code use some typedefs that will be 
   redefined according to the CPU/OS.

   -----------------------------------------------------
   Martin Portmann               Mobile +41 79 330 60 12
   Software Department            Phone +41 62 896 42 40 
   Graph-Tech AG, Switzerland          [email-masked]
            http://www.graph-tech.ch/english/people/map/

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	[email-masked] [SMTP:[email-masked]]
> Sent:	Wednesday, July 22, 1998 9:20 PM
> To:	[email-masked]
> Subject:	Re: long long vs long
> 
> 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".
-
For help on using this list (especially unsubscribing), send a message to
"[email-masked]" with one line of text: "help".