Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!sri-spam!mordor!styx!twg-ap!amdahl!pyramid!prls!philabs!micomvax!musocs!mcgill-vision!mouse
From: mouse@mcgill-vision.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: Time for 64-bit longs?
Message-ID: <646@mcgill-vision.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 11-Feb-87 02:11:34 EST
Article-I.D.: mcgill-v.646
Posted: Wed Feb 11 02:11:34 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 13-Feb-87 06:24:23 EST
References: <848@epimass.UUCP> <260@vax1.ccs.cornell.edu> <66@umich.UUCP>
Organization: McGill University, Montreal
Lines: 22
Xref: watmath comp.lang.c:1011 comp.unix.wizards:926

In article <66@umich.UUCP>, jtr485@umich.UUCP (Johnathan Tainter) writes:
> In article <260@vax1.ccs.cornell.edu>, jsm@vax1.UUCP writes:
>> In article <848@epimass.UUCP> jbuck@epimass.UUCP (Joe Buck) writes:
>>> Has anyone bit the bullet and gone to 64-bit longs?
>> And will the future 128-byte pointer be a "long long long" ?
> Even assuming you meant 128-bit address,just what do you propose
> doing with that pointer?  Going to assign every quark in the universe
> its own address?

Just because the poor guy slipped up and wrote "pointer", don't come
down too hard.  I would certainly like a C compiler which used
short=16, int=32, long=64.  Eventually, on a 64-bit machine, short=32,
int=64, long=128.

2^128 ~= 1.7E38, surely there are more than 2E38 quarks.

					der Mouse

USA: {ihnp4,decvax,akgua,utzoo,etc}!utcsri!mcgill-vision!mouse
     think!mosart!mcgill-vision!mouse
Europe: mcvax!decvax!utcsri!mcgill-vision!mouse
ARPAnet: think!mosart!mcgill-vision!mouse@harvard.harvard.edu