Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c++:13125 comp.lang.c:38812
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!redsox!campbell
From: campbell@redsox.bsw.com (Larry Campbell)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: 64 bit architectures and C/C++
Message-ID: <1991Apr29.125527.22130@redsox.bsw.com>
Date: 29 Apr 91 12:55:27 GMT
References: <168@shasta.Stanford.EDU> <1991Apr29.050715.22968@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Reply-To: campbell@redsox.bsw.com (Larry Campbell)
Organization: The Boston Software Works, Inc.
Lines: 32

In article <1991Apr29.050715.22968@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> phil@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Phil Howard KA9WGN) writes:
->3. If conformance to the standard is important, then the obvious
->choices are
-
->	short	16 bits
->	int	32 bits
->	long	64 bits
->	void *	64 bits
-
-That depends on the natural address size of the machine.  If the
-machine uses 32 bit addresses, then (void *) should be 32 bits.
-I would not want my address arrays taking up more memory than is
-needed.
-
-Is it really necessary that sizeof(void *) == sizeof(long)?

Of course not.

We're currently porting a largish (150K lines) program to a machine
on which:

	short	(dunno, not at work now so I can't check)
	int	32 bits
	long	32 bits
	void *	128 bits

Thank *god* it has a fully-compliant ANSI compiler.

For extra credit:  can you guess what machine this is?
-- 
Larry Campbell             The Boston Software Works, Inc., 120 Fulton Street
campbell@redsox.bsw.com    Boston, Massachusetts 02109 (USA)