Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!seismo!columbia!cheshire.columbia.edu!francus
From: francus@cheshire.columbia.edu.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: Supercomputer Unix decisions
Message-ID: <4679@columbia.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 10-Jun-87 08:54:44 EDT
Article-I.D.: columbia.4679
Posted: Wed Jun 10 08:54:44 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 13-Jun-87 04:47:02 EDT
References: <3659@spool.WISC.EDU> <743@geac.UUCP>
Sender: nobody@columbia.UUCP
Reply-To: francus@cheshire.columbia.edu.UUCP (Yoseff Francus)
Organization: Columbia University CS Department
Lines: 18

In article <743@geac.UUCP> daveb@geac.UUCP (Dave Brown) writes:
>In article <3659@spool.WISC.EDU> lm@cottage.WISC.EDU (Larry McVoy) writes:
>>Hi there.  (sorry, pete).  Suppose you were to bring up a Unix on a machine
>>that liked 64 bit ints better than 32 bit ints.  Would you be tempted to
>>make some of the changes that have already been anticipated - such as making
>>the time fields be 64 bits in things like the stat buf and timer structs?
>>Or would you leave things alone so that old code worked?

I seem to recall that when UTS first came out on the Amdahl they
were using 64 bits per integer.  Eventually they went back to 32
bits.  If my recollection is correct you may want to find out 

why that decision was made.

******************************************************************
yoseff f
In Xanadu did Kubla Khan a stately pleasure dome decree
But only if the NFL to a franchise would agree.