Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 11:43:53 -0700 From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> To: Pete French <petefrench@ticketswitch.com>, colin.percival@wadham.ox.ac.uk Cc: stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Will there be a 5.3.1? Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20041221114103.053aa0b8@localhost> In-Reply-To: <E1Cgi14-000Bav-2Q@dilbert.firstcallgroup.co.uk> References: <6.2.0.14.2.20041219181710.062cde10@localhost> <E1Cgi14-000Bav-2Q@dilbert.firstcallgroup.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
It's the C language. While it's claimed to be "portable," it really doesn't address integer size and endianism well enough. Oddly enough, even FORTRAN did a better job. You could declare a variable to be INTEGER*4 and that would be that, regardless of architecture. Which ports were causing you headaches? --Brett At 04:17 AM 12/21/2004, Pete French wrote: >> I'd really like to see support for the AMD64 architecture become rock solid, >> too, because 64 bit Athlons are starting to sell at great prices. > >Sadly I went back to running i386 on my AMD64's - not because of problems >with FreeBSD, but because of problems with ports. It seems that theres a lot >of code out there assuming sizeof(int) = sizeof(long). Which is a shame (and >also depresses me after living through identical problems with the 16->32 >switch. You might have thought people would heave learnt) > >-pcf.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?6.2.0.14.2.20041221114103.053aa0b8>