Path: utzoo!dptcdc!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!ucsd!sdcsvax!ucsdhub!hp-sdd!hplabs!hpda!hpcuhb!hpihoah!jwatts
From: jwatts@hpihoah.HP.COM (Jon Watts)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Re: looking for >32-bit address space [and how will C handle it]
Message-ID: <4420011@hpihoah.HP.COM>
Date: 17 Apr 89 19:29:26 GMT
References: <16568@winchester.mips.COM>
Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino
Lines: 13

One problem with making integer sizes explicitly specified is that this would
result in gross inefficiency when the specified size does not fit nicely into
the word size of the machine it's running on.  Or, stated another way, would
require the programmer to know the 'natural' sizes on the machine he (she) is
running on in order to write efficient code.  I've given this some thought
before and have not been able to think of any general way to specify the
integer sizes that will not cause problems for quite a few programs.  The best
idea I've come up with is to have the programmer specify the required range
for the integer (similar to enumerated types in pascal) and then have the
compiler choose the smallest convient type which is large enough to accomodate
the specified range.  Note that it would be the programmers responsibility to
insure that he does not exceed the range he specifies and he must not make any
assumptions as to what the number will due if he does.