From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <3C70E771.C70AD177@strakt.com> From: Boyd Roberts MIME-Version: 1.0 To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] Plan9 16bit C compilers References: <0f1bbdb9a9730e5e2b01a31b6236de82@plan9.bell-labs.com>, <3C6D14D9.6D0C9451@strakt.com> <3C6E021B.3F8856E0@null.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 12:37:21 +0100 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 523d5a48-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 "Douglas A. Gwyn" wrote: > A C implementor might well choose "int" to be 32 bits even > on a machine where 64 bits would be more natural, in order > to ease importing of code written sloppily on a so-called > 32-bit platform. True, but that code is broken and should be fixed. That was probably the rational behind the choice Digital made with the Alpha, which I think was completely wrong. I don't know who made the decision [CRL?], but I argued against it at the time. Porting ULTRIX to it would have been pretty sporty, but they chose OSF.