Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!ames!styx!elxsi!sherm
From: sherm@elxsi.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: Time for 64-bit longs?
Message-ID: <263@elxsi.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 9-Feb-87 22:36:16 EST
Article-I.D.: elxsi.263
Posted: Mon Feb  9 22:36:16 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 11-Feb-87 05:17:18 EST
References: <848@epimass.UUCP> <291@mtxinu.UUCP> <1643@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>
Reply-To: sherm@elxsi.UUCP (Michael Sherman)
Organization: ELXSI Super Computers, San Jose
Lines: 21
Summary: ELXSI tried 64-bit longs for a while - doesn't work in real life
Xref: watmath comp.lang.c:981 comp.unix.wizards:899

In article <1643@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> jon@oddhack.UUCP (Jon Leech) writes:
>	I don't think this is correct. All K&R says about it is
>that 'short is no longer than long' (pg 34 sec 2.2). Why not have
>short=16 bits, int=32 bits, long=64 bits?
>
>    -- Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon)
>    Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group

When we began our first Unix port to the ELXSI we tried your suggestion
and found that it was actually *rare* to find a program that would still
work with 64-bit longs.  

After repeatedly bashing our heads against horrible debugging problems in 
third-party's 100,000 line applications we finally saw the light and 
switched to a 32-bit long and a 64-bit long long.

Moral arguments aside, we're stuck with int==long.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Sherman
...!{sun|styx}!elxsi!sherm