From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <32a656c20509301427v79705106ta3c169660f5d59b6@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 14:27:49 -0700
From: Vester Thacker <vester.thacker@gmail.com>
To: Charles Forsyth <forsyth@terzarima.net>
Subject: Re: [9fans] 64-Bit programming model.
In-Reply-To: <f344c691fd8960b43b2c77f308ed2ea3@terzarima.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <32a656c20509300431j6ab02b7cm7512019149d45a59@mail.gmail.com>
	<f344c691fd8960b43b2c77f308ed2ea3@terzarima.net>
Cc: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 92b3ca8e-ead0-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On 9/30/05, Charles Forsyth <forsyth@terzarima.net> wrote:
> on amd64 it is:
>
> short is 16 bits, as before for Plan 9
> int and long are 32 bits, as before
> long long is 64 bits, also as before
> pointers are 64 bits, not as before.  (it's that last bit causes most of =
the trouble.)
> i think it must be LLP64 in your scheme

Thanks, Charles.

Sorry, I forgot to mention the article that led to my earlier
question: http://www.unix.org/version2/whatsnew/lp64_wp.html
Perhaps it is just a propaganda piece, but I can't discern the difference.
I suppose there are many valid reasons to use LLP64 over LP64. Anyhow,
I am just being  curious and poking things with a stick rather than
implying any criticism.

--vester