Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!sri-spam!mordor!styx!lll-lcc!well!msudoc!umich!jtr485
From: jtr485@umich.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: Time for 64-bit longs?
Message-ID: <66@umich.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 1-Feb-87 11:40:33 EST
Article-I.D.: umich.66
Posted: Sun Feb  1 11:40:33 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 8-Feb-87 01:20:57 EST
References: <848@epimass.UUCP> <260@vax1.ccs.cornell.edu>
Organization: EECS, University of Michigan
Lines: 14
Xref: watmath comp.lang.c:949 comp.unix.wizards:861

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?  I know Convex
> >has a monstrosity called a "long long" that's 64 bits; they leave
> >long as 32 bits, the same as int, apparently because it was too hard
> >to change all the Berkeley code that assumes long == int.  But it
> >seems the Vax architecture will soon require a 64-bit type at the
> >high end.
> 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?

--j.a.tainter