Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!sdd.hp.com!news.cs.indiana.edu!msi.umn.edu!cs.umn.edu!atc!s5000!nightowl!det
From: det@nightowl.MN.ORG (Derek E. Terveer)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: 64 bit architectures and C/C++
Message-ID: <1991May9.192156.19291@nightowl.MN.ORG>
Date: 9 May 91 19:21:56 GMT
References: <16023@smoke.brl.mil> <1991May2.033545.15051@athena.mit.edu> <16036@smoke.brl.mil> <1991May6.232116.11401@sq.sq.com>
Organization: Joel's Home System
Lines: 26

msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader) writes:


>> There are numerous CONFORMING ways in
>> which additional integer types can be added to C.  "long long" is NOT
>> one of these, and a standard-conforming implementation is OBLIGED to
>> diagnose the use of "long long", which violates the Constraints of
>> X3.159-1989 section 3.5.2.  Therefore "long long" is not a wise way
>> to make such an extension.

>I disagree.  I think "long long" is a preferable approach.

>The Standard does not guarantee that there exists, in a C implement-
>ation, any integral type wider than 32 bits.  [...]

But the standard also does not guarantee (as far as i know) that there doesn't exist
>32 bits.

What is wrong with simply implementing the following in a compiler?

	char	=	 8 bits
	short	=	16 bits
	int	=	32 bits
	long	=	64 bits
-- 
det@nightowl.mn.org