From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: dexen deVries <dexen.devries@gmail.com>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
Date: Sat,  5 May 2012 17:33:21 +0200
Message-ID: <1411330.QJAbfBr5F9@blitz>
User-Agent: KMail/4.8.2 (Linux/3.4.0-rc5-l48; KDE/4.8.2; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <c16d42fafcb9d73a58f0f9b4882393ce@brasstown.quanstro.net>
References: <CAL3m8eAf2Yjpg77wtykTSPnyKHxKHYc5YWfWH2L8CNjc86P1kA@mail.gmail.c>
	<CAL3m8eDJEo6o+srxuYpKSGDmM+0KgQhC15u7Qxg4TvnpO57Zgw@mail.gmail.c>
	<c16d42fafcb9d73a58f0f9b4882393ce@brasstown.quanstro.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: [9fans] integer width on AMD64 (was: Re:  AMD64 system)
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 8405bf72-ead7-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Wednesday 25 of April 2012 15:32:06 erik quanstrom wrote:
> also, in case you missed it sizeof(int)==sizeof(long)==4 on both 32
> and 64 bit plan 9, so recompiled programs won't get bigger integers
> just for the recompiling.


pardon silly question, but... why, on 64bit machine, P9 uses 32bit ints and
longs?

my impression is, int was supposed to match machine's preferred (best
performance etc.) integeral datatype, and long was supposed to be enough to
hold a pointer? (i.e., sizeof(long) >= sizeof(void*))


--
dexen deVries

Until real software engineering is developed, the next best practice is to
develop with a dynamic system that has extreme late binding in all aspects.
-- Alan Kay