From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "erik quanstrom" <quanstro@quanstro.net>
To: "Devon H. O'Dell" <devon.odell@gmail.com>, 9fans@cse.psu.edu
References: <32a656c20509300431j6ab02b7cm7512019149d45a59@mail.gmail.com>
	<f344c691fd8960b43b2c77f308ed2ea3@terzarima.net>
	<32a656c20509301427v79705106ta3c169660f5d59b6@mail.gmail.com>
	<op.sxxvhc0oqv20vd@jmk.lra.lucent.com> 
	<433DFDEC.9040301@lanl.gov> 
	<9ab217670509302019h139a3d72j@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <9ab217670509302019h139a3d72j@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [9fans] 64-Bit programming model.
Message-Id: <20051001044621.3D51B183779@dexter-peak.quanstro.net>
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 23:46:21 -0500
Cc: 
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 92d1f7c0-ead0-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

i think the point is that there will always be a new chip or machine
out there that will force you to use a different model so trying 
to pretend that everything works the same is bad thinking.

all the world's a vax ... hey, wait a minute. i've done this once before.

erik

"Devon H. O'Dell" <devon.odell@gmail.com> writes

| Though I don't necessarily agree with Jim if I understand him
| correctly. I don't think that providing interfaces to make code
| compilation on systems of different bit sizes promotes `a sloppy
| monoculture.'
| 
| --Devon