From: haeb@demon.net (Harry Broomhall) Subject: Re: long long vs long 22 Jul 1998 10:16:18 -0700 Message-ID: <901113434.0013791.0.cygnus.gnu-win32@office.demon.net> References: <73B8DC108A44D111B44700805FF5C69D01E51F@cware> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Graham Murray Cc: gnu-win32@cygnus.com Graham Murray said: > > 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. This is a frequent question. I am told that while it would be thoreticaly a good idea, so much existing code would break as to make it unviable. (This from a member of the C9x committee.) Regards, Harry. - For help on using this list (especially unsubscribing), send a message to "gnu-win32-request@cygnus.com" with one line of text: "help".