Prof Brian Ripley wrote: > On Tue, 17 May 2011, Earnie wrote: > >> NightStrike wrote: >>> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 12:28 PM, Earnie >>> <ear...@users.sourceforge.net> wrote: >>>> RSPsoftware wrote: >>>>> for years I was thinking that size of int and long would >>>>> change to 8 >>>>> >>>> >>>> The you'll find http://www.unix.org/whitepapers/64bit.html an >>>> interesting read. Yea, it speaks relative to UNIX but data is >>>> data regardless of the OS. >>> >>> This is a good read, too: >>> http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb496995.aspx >>> >> >> It's an interesting fact that long long on LP64 is non-existent >> instead of 128 bits or even equivalent to long meaning meaning that >> one must care to check for the existence of long long when >> programing. > > Not true: C99 requires a long long type. And your claim is not true > of real-world LP64 systems. E.g. x86_64 (aka amd64) versions of > Linux, Solaris, FreeBSD and Mac OS X all have 64-bit long long (and > not just with gcc). So does 64-bit Sparc Solaris. > > I am speaking of C here: a far-too-common error is for C++ > programmers to assume that long long is part of C++, but it is not in > the 1998 standard and careful compilers report it as a warning or > even error. >
Well, that would go against the documented definitions linked to ablve for LP64 that have long long as undefined. Can you link to the C99 definition? Earnie ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ What Every C/C++ and Fortran developer Should Know! Read this article and learn how Intel has extended the reach of its next-generation tools to help Windows* and Linux* C/C++ and Fortran developers boost performance applications - including clusters. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devmay _______________________________________________ Mingw-w64-public mailing list Mingw-w64-public@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mingw-w64-public
