From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <3e1162e6050510140254b49876@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 14:02:09 -0700
From: David Leimbach <leimy2k@gmail.com>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] Sleep-complexity
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0505101327250.20942@enigma.lanl.gov>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <35f6f399b29a91e456132e3e1a022fc4@plan9.bell-labs.com>
	<014401c5558e$f82839f0$aafb7d50@kilgore>
	<Pine.LNX.4.58.0505101327250.20942@enigma.lanl.gov>
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 495c257a-ead0-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On 5/10/05, Ronald G. Minnich <rminnich@lanl.gov> wrote:
>=20
>=20
> On Tue, 10 May 2005, boyd, rounin wrote:
>=20
> > > what was their choice?
> >
> > long =3D=3D 64 bits
> > int =3D=3D 32 bits
> > short =3D=3D 16 bits
> >
> > i argued:
> >
> > long =3D=3D 32 bits
> > int =3D=3D 64 bits
> > short =3D=3D 16 bits
>=20
> IIRC that is what SGI did, correct?
>=20

That would violate the C standard.

sizeof (short) <=3D sizeof(int) <=3D sizeof(long) <=3D sizeof(long long).

I doubt anyone did this.

> ron
>