Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 13 Jan 1998 02:14:45 -0500
From:      "Carol Chan" <cchan@rogerswave.ca>
To:        "Darren Reed" <avalon@coombs.anu.edu.au>, "Terry Lambert" <tlambert@primenet.com>
Cc:        <avalon@coombs.anu.edu.au>, <tlambert@primenet.com>, <brian@awfulhak.org>, <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>
Subject:   Re: New typedefs in sys/types.h
Message-ID:  <024d01bd1ff2$edf5d660$094aa8c0@jenny>

next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

-----Original Message-----
From: Darren Reed <avalon@coombs.anu.edu.au>
To: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>
Cc: avalon@coombs.anu.edu.au <avalon@coombs.anu.edu.au>;
tlambert@primenet.com <tlambert@primenet.com>; brian@awfulhak.org
<brian@awfulhak.org>; freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
<freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
Date: Monday, January 12, 1998 10:37 PM
Subject: Re: New typedefs in sys/types.h


>In some mail from Terry Lambert, sie said:
>>
>> > > Technically, long should be 64 bits because sizeof(int) is <=
sizeof(long);
>> > > but just as technically, a 64 bit int meets the "register size test"
>> > > and the "single bus cycle test" for "int-ness" (the same test that
>> > > *should* have made compiler writers use 16 bit int's on 68000/68010
>> > > chips).
>>
>> [ ... ]
>>
>> > i believe i goes like...
>> >
>> > long = 64 bits
>> > int = 32 bits
>>
>> This is, of course, just the bogosity I was trying to avoid.
>
>Well, FWIW, apparently Digital Unix has int = 32 and long = 64.
>
>
>
I had seen people use "long long" for 64 bits.




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?024d01bd1ff2$edf5d660$094aa8c0>