Re: [9fans] Is this a bug in 8c?

[forsyth@caldo.demon.co.uk]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 479 bytes --]

it probably boils down to ``nothing in the system needs it that much (yet)'',
and there were plenty of other worthwhile things to do (such as storing the hits of the 60s),
but since offsets are now 64 bits, it's probable that something will be done about it.
the long long support was originally light, but has changed over the past year or so.

>>Strange, it's about the same as supporting "long" on the PDP-11.

it took a little while for that to be done fully, too.


[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 2134 bytes --]

To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Is this a bug in 8c?
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 10:19:07 GMT
Message-ID: <3C914F6C.D2F42C9E@null.net>

Russ Cox wrote:
> 8c et al. don't do ? : for non-integer types,
> and long long is a non-integer type (meaning
> it's synthesized from multiple machine words).

long long is an "integer type" according to the meaning
of that term in the C standard.  That's not determined
by implementation details such as how many words are needed.

> Ken said the amount of work wasn't worth it.

Strange, it's about the same as supporting "long" on the PDP-11.