Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!psuvax1!hsdndev!cmcl2!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: 64 bit architectures and C/C++
Message-ID: <16023@smoke.brl.mil>
Date: 1 May 91 18:57:58 GMT
References: <168@shasta.Stanford.EDU> <13229@goofy.Apple.COM>
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.
Lines: 19

In article <13229@goofy.Apple.COM> turk@Apple.COM (Ken "Turk" Turkowski) writes:
>I would suggest:
>short	16 bits
>long	32 bits
>long long	64 bits
>int	UNSPECIFIED
>void *	UNSPECIFIED

What on Earth do you mean by "UNSPECIFIED"?  An implementation MUST
make a definite choice here.  The C language standard already contains
all the requisite specifications.

Note that a standard-conforming implementation is obliged to diagnose
use of any construct such as "long long".  Therefore that is a stupid
extension.  I guess I shouldn't be surprised, however, given that the
APW C math library functions were declared as returning type "extended"
rather than the type "double" required by the C standard.  It didn't
dawn on them, apparently, that "double" would have best been
implemented as SANE extended format in the first place.