From: map AT graph-tech DOT ch (Martin Portmann) Subject: RE: long long vs long 23 Jul 1998 20:08:13 -0700 Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain To: gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com 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 map AT graph-tech DOT ch http://www.graph-tech.ch/english/people/map/ > -----Original Message----- > From: michael AT weiser DOT saale-net DOT de [SMTP:michael AT weiser DOT saale-net DOT de] > Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 1998 9:20 PM > To: gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com > 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 > "gnu-win32-request AT cygnus DOT com" with one line of text: "help". - 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".