Re: [9fans] Sleep-complexity

[Mike Haertel <9fans@ducky.net>]

>> All the world is no longer a 32-bit 386.
>
>True, but the pain of the PDP-11-to-VAX migration, when `int' changed
>from 16 bits to 32, seems to have convinced the standards
>organisations that they don't want to change the sizes of any integral
>types.  The proposed sizes for 64-bit implementations (in `LLP64')
>are: 32 bits for int and long, 64 for long long and pointers.  And
>ANSI & POSIX will continue to paper over size differences with *_t
>types.
>
>I'd prefer 64-bit longs and no long longs (or 128-bit long longs), but
>that seems unlikely given the vast existing corpus of code written
>without much attention to types.

Wow, you're a little out of date.

The *BSDs and Linux did the Right Thing: on Alpha and AMD64
(the two flavors of which I have personal knowledge) "long"
is 64 bits.

So the vast corpus of software that has been ported to
64-bit *BSD and Linux systems is now free of the assumption
that sizeof (int) == sizeof (long).

There is still a pervasive assumption that ints are 32 bits.