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>