From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] Sleep-complexity Date: Sun, 8 May 2005 15:59:31 -0700 From: geoff@collyer.net In-Reply-To: <20050508224044.GA29885@augusta.math.psu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Topicbox-Message-UUID: 46d99c92-ead0-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > All the world is no longer a 32-bit 386. True, but the pain of the PDP-11-to-VAX migration, when `int' changed from 16 bits to 32, seems to have convinced the standards organisations that they don't want to change the sizes of any integral types. The proposed sizes for 64-bit implementations (in `LLP64') are: 32 bits for int and long, 64 for long long and pointers. And ANSI & POSIX will continue to paper over size differences with *_t types. I'd prefer 64-bit longs and no long longs (or 128-bit long longs), but that seems unlikely given the vast existing corpus of code written without much attention to types.