Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!mips!gate.ready.com!gate.ready.com!dhoward
From: dhoward@ready.eng.ready.com (David Howard)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: 64 bit architectures and C/C++
Message-ID: <1991May22.211056.19387@ready.eng.ready.com>
Date: 22 May 91 21:10:56 GMT
References: <1991May9.192156.19291@nightowl.MN.ORG> <313@orac.UUCP> <6659@gssc.UUCP>
Organization: Ready Systems
Lines: 13

In article <6659@gssc.UUCP> timr@gssc.UUCP (Tim Roberts) writes:
>...
>What if your 64 bit architecture doesn't have any instructions to deal with
>16 bit units?  You certainly aren't going to include something as a fundamental
>type when your architecture can't easily deal with it, are you?  What if, going
>further, you can't manipulate 32 bit objects either?  On such a machine, you
>would probably create short=int=long=64 bits.

C compilers for the 80x86 abortchitecture have long=32 and pointer=32,
neither of which is easily supported or natural on that chip. 

The question as to whether C types should map to the architecture or
to what is easiest on the programmer is an interesting one.