This is the mail archive of the
cygwin@sourceware.cygnus.com
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
RE: long long vs long
- To: gnu-win32 at cygnus dot com
- Subject: RE: long long vs long
- From: Martin Portmann <map at graph-tech dot ch>
- Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 14:04:25 +0200
That's why portable code use some typedefs that will be
redefined according to the CPU/OS.
-----------------------------------------------------
Martin Portmann Mobile +41 79 330 60 12
Software Department Phone +41 62 896 42 40
Graph-Tech AG, Switzerland map@graph-tech.ch
http://www.graph-tech.ch/english/people/map/
> -----Original Message-----
> From: michael@weiser.saale-net.de [SMTP:michael@weiser.saale-net.de]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 1998 9:20 PM
> To: gnu-win32@cygnus.com
> Subject: Re: long long vs long
>
> Hi Graham,
>
> You wrote:
>
> >This is probably a silly question, but rather than having long long
> for
> >64 bit, why was long not made 64bit? The standard (AFAIK) states that
> >short <= int <= long. So, it should be possible for long to be 64
> bit
> >rather than 32. This would give a simple progression from 8bit chars
> to
> >64bit longs.
> No because the standard says
> short == 16 bit
> long == 32 bit
> int == 16 or 32 depending on the machine's architecture
>
> For example: Under DOS int is 16 bit while under Win32 und UN*X it is
> 32 bit.
> So there's no way for long to be 64 bit while conforming to the
> standard.
>
> bye
>
> Michael
> -
> For help on using this list (especially unsubscribing), send a message
> to
> "gnu-win32-request@cygnus.com" with one line of text: "help".
-
For help on using this list (especially unsubscribing), send a message to
"gnu-win32-request@cygnus.com" with one line of text: "help".