From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 11:44:25 -0400 From: Karl Magdsick To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] 64-Bit programming model. In-Reply-To: <3d9930aa542f29f26c3014fa5cf12f7a@terzarima.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <32a656c20509300431j6ab02b7cm7512019149d45a59@mail.gmail.com> <3d9930aa542f29f26c3014fa5cf12f7a@terzarima.net> Topicbox-Message-UUID: 9266f24a-ead0-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 [obligatory plug for C99 types] u_int8_t, int32_t, u_int32_t, int64_t, u_int64_t, etc. are for use in code that is dependent upon integer width. [/obligatory plug for C99 types] -Karl On 9/30/05, Charles Forsyth wrote: > on amd64 it is: > > short is 16 bits, as before for Plan 9 > int and long are 32 bits, as before > long long is 64 bits, also as before > pointers are 64 bits, not as before. (it's that last bit causes most of = the trouble.) > i think it must be LLP64 in your scheme > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Vester Thacker > To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu> > Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 04:31:45 -0700 > Subject: [9fans] 64-Bit programming model. > Okay, time for the "dumb question of the month". > > Concerning Plan 9 64-Bit support, which Long Pointer programming model > is being used with Sparc64 and AMD64 ports? LLP64, LP64 or ILP64. Just > curious. > > Forgive my ignorance, I am a layman and nowadays get my schooling > though search engine results. > > --vester > >