Re: [9fans] Sleep-complexity

[Nigel Roles <nigel@9fs.org>]

>the assumption usually made in practice is a little more subtle:
>int <= long[=32] < long long [=64].  most older programs tended
>to use int for things such as for loop values, that probably needed to be
>at least 16 bits, but might not need to be as much as 32.
>by contrast, a `long' quite often needed to be 32 bits, and often
>that was `no more, no less'.
>
>  
>
I'll probably regret this, but the gcc x86_64 approach hasn't worked out 
too badly.
When we did our 64 bit port recently, it was only cases of trying to 
stash a pointer
in an int which bit us. When I say us, I mean the authors of certain
Linux packages. At one time I thought there was a maxim of "int is the 
efficient
machine size, long is big enough to hold a pointer", so gcc x86_64 can 
claim to
meet that reasoning.

Nigel