Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!sri-spam!sri-unix!hplabs!cae780!amdcad!sun!imagen!SofPasuk
From: SofPasuk@imagen.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: Time for 64-bit longs?
Message-ID: <835@imagen.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 30-Jan-87 15:28:04 EST
Article-I.D.: imagen.835
Posted: Fri Jan 30 15:28:04 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 31-Jan-87 09:24:54 EST
References: <848@epimass.UUCP> <291@mtxinu.UUCP> <1643@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>
Organization: Tohu VaVohu
Lines: 11
Xref: watmath comp.lang.c:893 comp.unix.wizards:763

In article <1643@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>, news@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu (Usenet netnews) writes:
> ... Why not have
> short=16 bits, int=32 bits, long=64 bits?
> 

It would have been nice perhaps if the language was originally defined that
way.  But a retrofit that would make long=64 bits would play real havoc
with not only portability issues (no flames please, I'm talking REALITY here),
but also with execution performance of programs that need no more than 32-bit
precision, use long for same, and now have to use 64 bit arithmetic (possibly
invoking run time routines for every arithmetic operation).