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 19:52:47 +0200
Message-ID: <1941502.uSA3vSiS8P@blitz>
User-Agent: KMail/4.8.2 (Linux/3.4.0-rc5-l48; KDE/4.8.2; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <CAOw7k5gFmRQvoR8Z5e+x99ZmV=yq9E3uuHiaXYeAfg8h2Dgchw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL3m8eAf2Yjpg77wtykTSPnyKHxKHYc5YWfWH2L8CNjc86P1kA@mail.gmail.c>
	<1411330.QJAbfBr5F9@blitz>
	<CAOw7k5gFmRQvoR8Z5e+x99ZmV=yq9E3uuHiaXYeAfg8h2Dgchw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: [9fans] integer width on AMD64 (was: Re: AMD64 system)
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 84221848-ead7-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Saturday 05 of May 2012 18:48:37 Charles Forsyth wrote:
> many existing C programs (and not just on Plan 9) think long is 32 bits, or
> don't care.
> those that do care don't work. for those that don't care, it doesn't matter.
> it's quite difficult to decide automatically (eg, in a compiler) into which
> category a program falls.
> a compiler can't easily detect that a program expected 32 bits only and
> will malfunction with 64.
> (..snip..)

thank you and erik for the explanations, makes perfect sense now :-)

--
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