[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Recent checkins
From: |
Leo Korinth |
Subject: |
Re: Recent checkins |
Date: |
Thu, 9 May 2002 13:28:21 +0200 (MEST) |
On Wed, 8 May 2002, James Morrison wrote:
>
> --- Simon Law <sfllaw@engmail.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
> > On 8 May 2002, Neal H Walfield wrote:
> >
> > > > And we know more specifically that:
> > > >
> > > > short int < int = long int.
> > >
> > > According to whom? The world is more than just x86.
> >
> > I agree. On SPARC v9 machines:
> >
> > char : 8 bytes
> > short : 16 bytes
> > int : 32 bytes
> > long : 64 bytes
> >
> > Simon
> >
>
> Humm,
> where did you get this information, any sparcv9 machines I have say a long
> is only 4 bytes. I also don't know of any machine that has 8 bytes chars,
> even unicode doesn't use that.
>
>
long is 64 bit or 8 byte when compiled to a 64bit binary.
At school the compilers do 32 bit binaries as default,
but, for an OS, i think you would like to take advantage
of that modern sparcs is 64-bit.
/Leo
- Re: Recent checkins, (continued)
- Re: Recent checkins, Roland McGrath, 2002/05/08
- Re: Recent checkins, Thomas Bushnell, BSG, 2002/05/08
- Re: Recent checkins, Roland McGrath, 2002/05/08
- Re: Recent checkins, Thomas Bushnell, BSG, 2002/05/08
- Re: Recent checkins, Roland McGrath, 2002/05/08
- Re: Recent checkins, Jeroen Dekkers, 2002/05/08
- Re: Recent checkins, Neal H Walfield, 2002/05/08
- Re: Recent checkins, Simon Law, 2002/05/08
- Re: Recent checkins, James Morrison, 2002/05/08
- Re: Recent checkins, Simon Law, 2002/05/08
- Re: Recent checkins,
Leo Korinth <=
- Re: Recent checkins, Niels Möller, 2002/05/08
Re: Recent checkins, Roland McGrath, 2002/05/08
(no subject), Bryan Wagstaff, 2002/05/08