Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: bits in an int vs. long?
Message-ID: <11218@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Date: 5 Oct 89 13:43:34 GMT
References: <181@inpnms.UUCP>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 16

In article <181@inpnms.UUCP> logan@inpnms.UUCP (James Logan) writes:
>Unless there is a clear real-world argument against the
>assumption that int's and long's are the same size, I will have
>to treat the two as interchangeable.  Comments?

I don't have a good solution for the problem you're stuck with,
since such assumptions should never have been made in the first
place.

The AT&T MC680x0 compiler I use is configured for sizeof(int)==2
and sizeof(long)==4.  That's a fairly common choice on smaller
CPU architectures.

I haven't seen many C implementations where longs are 64 bits,
but there are some and it is likely to become more common in the
future.