Path: utzoo!dptcdc!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!ernie.Berkeley.EDU!jas
From: jas@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (Jim Shankland)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: looking for >32-bit address space [and how will C handle it]
Message-ID: <28828@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: 18 Apr 89 15:48:06 GMT
References: <1032@myrias.UUCP> <12289@reed.UUCP> <16568@winchester.mips.COM> <1326@softway.oz> <684@ultb.UUCP> <11300@tekecs.GWD.TEK.COM>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: jas@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (Jim Shankland)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 15

In article <11300@tekecs.GWD.TEK.COM> andrew@frip.wv.tek.com (Andrew Klossner) writes:
>[Having types int1, int2, int4, ... in C] would impose an eight-bit
>byte, binary, twos-complement model on the computer's arithmetic ....
>Is the world ready for the constraints of this model?

Probably yes, as a matter of practice.  But if int1 were defined
as an integer type having a range of *at least* -128 .. 127, int2
the same with a range of *at least* -32768 .. 32767, and so on,
the constraints aren't quite as ... constraining.  You can go ahead
and use that 36-bit word as an int4.

Jim Shankland
jas@ernie.berkeley.edu

"Blame it on the lies that killed us, blame it on the truth that ran us down"