Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!att!westmark!hico2!kak
From: kak@hico2.UUCP (Kris A. Kugel)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: bigger longs (64 bits)
Summary: C needs to be fixed!!!
Message-ID: <194@hico2.UUCP>
Date: 18 Feb 90 21:20:02 GMT
References: <11372@attctc.Dallas.TX.US>
Organization: High Country Software
Lines: 33

In article <11372@attctc.Dallas.TX.US>, markh@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Mark Harrison) writes:
> writes:
> >What are the feelings here regarding 64 bit longs?
>  
> As Unix tries to get a larger share of the commercial market, We will see
> a need for storing numeric values with 18-digit precision, ala COBOL and
> the IBM mainframe.  
> 
> btw, I have always heard 64 bit integers referred to as "xlongs" (extra
> longs)... is this common or just our own local jargon?
> 
> Mark Harrison
> (markh @ attctc)


We are starting to have problems because of the wide variety of
wordsizes on the machines UNIX runs on.  Does it make sense that
a long is such a different size on different machines?  What if
you want a guarenteed precision?  I'm beginning to think that
some kind of declaration construct  like int(need32) var; is needed.
The layout of structures is another problem; my friends at NETWISE
seem to think that they have a solution, but it seems to me to
make more sense to be able to specify exact layout, good over
ALL machines, than to translate every message sent over a
hetrogenous network.  But this means language support.  Isn't it
about time we bit the bullet and decided that the C language needs
to support types, structures, and ints that look the same from one
machine to another?  We are only going to network more in the future,
not less.

				Kris A. Kugel
	{uunet,att,rutgers}!westmark!hico2!kak <--daily
	                        ssbn!hico2!kak <--semi-daily