Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c++:13128 comp.lang.c:38826
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!dali.cs.montana.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!sdd.hp.com!wuarchive!uunet!lotus!lotus.com!robertk
From: robertk@lotatg.lotus.com (Robert Krajewski)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: 64 bit architectures and C/C++
Message-ID: <ROBERTK.91Apr29104705@lotatg.lotus.com>
Date: 29 Apr 91 14:47:05 GMT
References: <168@shasta.Stanford.EDU>
Sender: news@lotus.com
Organization: /homes/robertk/.organization
Lines: 5
In-Reply-To: shap@shasta.Stanford.EDU's message of 27 Apr 91 00:49:24 GMT

Actually, there's one thing that people didn't mention -- the
feasibility of bigger lightweight objects. I'd assume that any
processor that advertised a 64-bit archtitecture would be able to
efficiently move around 64 bits at a time, so it would be very cheap
to move 8-byte (excuse me, octet) objects around by copying.