Message-Id: <199801210842.KAA04094@ankara.duzen.com.tr>
Comments: Authenticated sender is <mitch AT ankara DOT duzen DOT com DOT tr>
From: "S. M. Halloran" <mitch AT duzen DOT com DOT tr>
Organization: User RFC 822- and 1123-Compliant
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 10:43:35 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: 64 bit integers ??!?
In-reply-to: <34C56EE0.1F9D@cs.com>
Precedence: bulk

On 20 Jan 98, John M. Aldrich was found to have commented thusly:

> G DOT DegliEsposti AT ads DOT it wrote:
> > 
> > >Strange, since an int is 32bit, I wonder 64bit integer are not declared at
> > >long int instead.
> > 
> > That's because the ANSI standard says explicitly that long int is 32 bit
> > long
> 
> That's incorrect.  ANSI states that:
> 
>   short >= 16 bits
>   long  >= 32 bits
>   short <= int <= long
> 
> That's the limit of the ANSI restrictions.  However, most
> implementations preserve longs as 32 bits, simply because most
> architectures _are_ 32-bit, and most code assumes long to be 32
> bits. 64-bit integer implementation is spotty at best; perhaps when
> 64-bit systems become more prevalent we'll see a change.
> 

No, we will see Java.  This whole nonsense regarding the 
size of integral data types in C has been used as a stick to beat the 
language and its descendants.  It is probably unrealistic to expect a 
once-and-for-all-time standard from ISO/ANSI since the nature of 
human thought and invention and of progess is such that we really 
can't anticipate what will be in front of our noses in the next 5 
years, let alone 500.

Mitch Halloran
Research (Bio)chemist
Duzen Laboratories Group
Ankara   TURKEY
mitch AT duzen DOT com DOT tr

other job title:  Sequoia's (dob 12-20-95) daddy