[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Tinycc-devel] casting bug?
From: |
Dave Dodge |
Subject: |
Re: [Tinycc-devel] casting bug? |
Date: |
Tue, 12 Jul 2005 16:27:00 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.4.2i |
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 12:12:16PM +0200, Alexander Strasser wrote:
> Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
> > LP64 platforms commonly has
> >
> > sizeof(void *) == 8
> > sizeof(long long) == 8
> > sizeof(long) == 8
> > sizeof(int) == 4
> > sizeof(short) == 2
> > sizeof(char) == 1
>
> IIRC m$ decided to go with LLP64 model, meaning long stays 32bit.
Yes. There was a interesting discussion/argument about this decision
in one of the MSDN blogs a few months ago:
http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2005/01/31/363790.aspx
Some other models that have been used:
- I once ported some code to an old Cray system where char was 8
bits and everything else was 64 bits.
- I've read about DSP platforms (I think these are currently in
production) where everything, including char, is 64 bits wide.
> This no-guarantee-about-sizes-in-C thing begins to hurt nowadays ;)
> Maybe it is really best to use special types like int_fast32_t
If the size of the type matters, <stdint.h> can be very useful.
-Dave Dodge
- Re: [Tinycc-devel] casting bug?, (continued)
- Re: [Tinycc-devel] casting bug?, Henrik Nordstrom, 2005/07/11
- Re: [Tinycc-devel] casting bug?, Alexander Strasser, 2005/07/12
- Re: [Tinycc-devel] casting bug?, Felix Nawothnig, 2005/07/12
- Re: [Tinycc-devel] casting bug?, Alexander Strasser, 2005/07/12
- Re: [Tinycc-devel] casting bug?, Felix Nawothnig, 2005/07/12
- Re: [Tinycc-devel] casting bug?, Alexander Strasser, 2005/07/12
- Re: [Tinycc-devel] casting bug?, Dave Dodge, 2005/07/12
- Re: [Tinycc-devel] casting bug?, Felix Nawothnig, 2005/07/12
- Re: [Tinycc-devel] casting bug?, Alexander Strasser, 2005/07/18
- Re: [Tinycc-devel] casting bug?, Dave Dodge, 2005/07/12
- Re: [Tinycc-devel] casting bug?,
Dave Dodge <=
- Re: [Tinycc-devel] casting bug?, lepton, 2005/07/12