Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 10:28:18 +1100 (EST) From: Andrew Kenneth Milton <akm@mother.sneaker.net.au> To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: New typedefs in sys/types.h Message-ID: <199801182328.KAA01348@mother.sneaker.net.au> In-Reply-To: <199801181936.UAA22085@dorifer.heim3.tu-clausthal.de> from "Oliver Fromme" at Jan 18, 98 08:36:40 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
+-----[ Oliver Fromme ]------------------------------
|
| To make a long story short, I'd vote for LP64, that is, 8 bit
| chars, 16 bit shorts, 32 bit ints, 64 bit longs and pointers.
| Maybe even 128 bit long long (BTW, the upcoming C9X standard
| even legalizes "long long").
I would still like int to be the 'best' size of an int for performance
on a piece of hardware. In any case I thought these things were determined
by the compiler, not the operating system, so someone is still free to
write a compiler that ignores your favourite sizes. (I never did quite
manage to work out how they were 'determined' by the compiler, all the
compiler classes I did, assumed you knew how big your registers were).
I don't understand why 'FreeBSD' has to define the size of these things,
when all this time I've been led to believe that it was 'compiler dependant,'
(wrt sizeof(int)).
Quite frankly if you _rely_ on int being 32 signed bits, your code sucks,
or at least is very non-portable (which I consider to be the same thing,
but, then I'm strange like that....mostly linux code too for some reason,
bastards probably do it on purpose).
Anyway my system of beliefs is crumbling so I'm going now.
--
,-_|\ SneakerNet | Andrew Milton | GSM: +61(41)6 022 411
/ \ P.O. Box 154 | akm@sneaker.net.au | Fax: +61(2) 9746 8233
\_,-._/ N Strathfield +--+----------------------+---+ Ph: +61(2) 9746 8233
v NSW 2137 | Low cost Internet Solutions |
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199801182328.KAA01348>