On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 11:33 AM, dexen deVries <dexen.devries@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Wednesday 25 of April 2012 15:32:06 erik quanstrom wrote:
> > also, in case you missed it sizeof(int)==sizeof(long)==4 on both 32
> > and 64 bit plan 9, so recompiled programs won't get bigger integers
> > just for the recompiling.
>
>
> pardon silly question, but... why, on 64bit machine, P9 uses 32bit ints and
> longs?
>
> my impression is, int was supposed to match machine's preferred (best
> performance etc.) integeral datatype, and long was supposed to be enough to
> hold a pointer? (i.e., sizeof(long) >= sizeof(void*))



Re "supposed" if you mean according to say Standard C, no.  Even so-called
K&R C was not black and white regarding this per se.  Standard C only
provided minimum sizes.  Indeed, there is often preferences, but that's
usually up to vendors, and lots of it yield *-defined behaviors.  As it
should.

There is also the issue of that, if, you really want a 64-bit integer,
then, using int is certainly moving towards a direction of a programming
error, since int does not often yield such a beast, even on so-called
systems which could provide it.  C99 provides for stuff such
as int_least64_t for those who really need such.

--
Greg Comeau / 4.3.10.1 with C++0xisms now in beta!
Comeau C/C++ ONLINE ==>     http://www.comeaucomputing.com/tryitout
World Class Compilers:  Breathtaking C++, Amazing C99, Fabulous C90.
Comeau C/C++ with Dinkumware's Libraries... Have you tried it?