Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!sugar!ficc!peter
From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: 64 bit ints
Message-ID: <2150@ficc.uu.net>
Date: 6 Nov 88 05:44:24 GMT
References: <6264@june.cs.washington.edu> <225800084@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu> <1988Nov4.183818.21555@utzoo.uucp>
Organization: SCADA
Lines: 24

In article <1988Nov4.183818.21555@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> In article <2074@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
> >What is the most convenient type for a 68000?

> You have just discovered Excedrin Headache number 68000 for compiler
> implementors....

> It sort of depends on whether you view the 68000 as a cut-down 68020
> or as a > machine in its own right.

I thought of the 68000 as a cut down 11/780 back before the 68020 was even
thought of, so a cut down 68020 is just fine. For me, if the compiler doesn't
at least give me the option of using 32-bit integers I don't want to know
about it. Luckily the 68000 compilers I have to deal with or consider give
me the option.

Actually, 16-bit ints isn't so bad... it does speed up your code, and
you can generally intermix the models (try doing that on your 8086).

What bugs me is the compilers that use 16-bit offset pointers.
-- 
Peter da Silva  `-_-'  Ferranti International Controls Corporation
"Have you hugged  U  your wolf today?"     uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter
Disclaimer: My typos are my own damn business.   peter@ficc.uu.net