Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!think.com!paperboy!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: <16103@smoke.brl.mil>
Date: 10 May 91 22:26:45 GMT
References: <168@shasta.Stanford.EDU> <45690005@hpcupt3.cup.hp.com>
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.
Lines: 13

In article <45690005@hpcupt3.cup.hp.com> shankar@hpcupt3.cup.hp.com (Shankar Unni) writes:
>But in my (humble?) opinion, much trouble would be headed off if C compilers
>on 64-bit architectures would simply dispense with the 16-bit type and make
>sizes of int == long == void * == 64 bits, and short == 32 bits.  Why is it
>so terribly important to have a 16-bit data type?

It isn't important, except perhaps to people who are trying to port
poorly-implemented code that managed to depend on such a system-dependent
feature.  Such code undoubtedly has far worse problems that that anyway.

By the way, there is NO NEED to say what data size choices a 64-bit
implementation "should" make.  It "should" not matter to any sensible
application.