Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c++:13342 comp.lang.c:39149
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wuarchive!uunet!mcsun!ukc!inmos!conor@lion.inmos.co.uk
From: conor@lion.inmos.co.uk (Conor O'Neill)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: 64 bit architectures and C/C++
Message-ID: <15956@ganymede.inmos.co.uk>
Date: 9 May 91 12:19:26 GMT
References: <168@shasta.Stanford.EDU> <4068@inews.intel.com> <179@shasta.Stanford.EDU>
Sender: rob@inmos.co.uk
Reply-To: conor@inmos.co.uk (Conor O'Neill)
Followup-To: alt.flame
Organization: INMOS Limited, Bristol, UK.
Lines: 15

In article <179@shasta.Stanford.EDU> shap@shasta.Stanford.EDU (shap) writes:
>While I happen to agree with this sentiment, there is an argument that X
>hundred million lines of C code can't be wrong.  The problem with
>theology is that it's not commercially viable.


Or did you mean "C hundred million lines of X code"...

(Apparently X even has such nasties buried inside it as expecting
that successive calls to malloc have higher addresses,
forcing the heap to grow upwards.) (So I'm informed)
---
Conor O'Neill, Software Group, INMOS Ltd., UK.
UK: conor@inmos.co.uk		US: conor@inmos.com
"It's state-of-the-art" "But it doesn't work!" "That is the state-of-the-art".