Path: utzoo!dptcdc!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!bellcore!texbell!sugar!ficc!peter
From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: looking for >32-bit address space [and how will C handle it]
Message-ID: <3879@ficc.uu.net>
Date: 16 Apr 89 16:26:21 GMT
References: <1032@myrias.UUCP> <12289@reed.UUCP> <16568@winchester.mips.COM> <684@ultb.UUCP>
Organization: Xenix Support
Lines: 20

In article <684@ultb.UUCP>, jed4885@ultb.UUCP (J.E. Dyer) writes:
> 	I was thinking about this today, and wondered why not change C
> 	slightly so that the size of an enumerated object (ints, chars,
> 	longs, etc) was explicitly defined.  Perhaps int1, int2, int4,
> 	int8 etc would be a good way of doing it...

I've suggested this before. I think syntax like:

	int:32	x, y;
	int:36	z;	/* Unisys 1100 compatibility :-> */
	int	a:8, b:9, c:6;

Ideally sizeof(char) should be 8 :->. I know, takenm to the extreme this'd
break too much code. But expanding bit-feild syntax would help solvce some
problems here...
-- 
Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation.

Business: uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter, peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180.
Personal: ...!texbell!sugar!peter, peter@sugar.hackercorp.com.