Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1998 19:00:27 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
To: Endlisnis <s257m AT unb DOT ca>
cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: as internal declarations - gfx demo
In-Reply-To: <35E966DB.6B6C260A@unb.ca>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.980830185902.20257C-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk


On Sun, 30 Aug 1998, Endlisnis wrote:

> > >     16 bits  <=  short  <=  int  <=  long  >=  32 bits
> 	So how come 'long' was not set to 64-bits?  Wouldn't that have made it easier
> to use 64-bit variables without being totally ANSI un-complient?  Why make up
> 'long long's when 'long's have been wasted?  I suppose this has to do with
> UNIX compatability.  It just seems odd to have 'int' the same as 'long'.

You are probably right: a lot of Unix code assumes that int and long are 
the same size, and many programs will break if that isn't true.  Of 
course, those programs are buggy, but you cannot correct the entire world 
with a single compiler ;-).