Re: u/int64 support for glib, status?
- From: Sander Vesik <Sander Vesik Sun COM>
- To: vishnu pobox com
- Cc: Owen Taylor <otaylor redhat com>, Gtk+ Developers <gtk-devel-list gnome org>
- Subject: Re: u/int64 support for glib, status?
- Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 11:05:34 +0100 (BST)
On Wed, 19 Sep 2001 vishnu pobox com wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 07:10:57PM -0400, Owen Taylor wrote:
> > C99 guarantees that there will be a type of _at least_ 64 bits.
> > While C99 doesn't guarantee that there will be a type of width
> > 64 any more than it guarantees that there will be a type of
> > width 8, 16, or 32, I think it's a pretty safe bet that processors
> > that have >= 64 bit types will have 64 bit types.
> Sure, but the 64-bit type might be called "short" for a
> sufficiently big machine.
As a matter of fact, Crays do have it just like that, including the alpha
based T3(D,E) machines. It's just a convention, besides, the only thing
the C standard say about length relations between the arithmetic types is
the 'type a is not longer than type b' relation. Nothing says they can't
all be of equal size.
> Victory to the Divine Mother!!
I haven't been vampired. You've been Weatherwaxed.
] [Thread Prev