Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!uwvax!cottage!lm From: lm@cottage.WISC.EDU (Larry McVoy) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.unix.wizards Subject: Re: pointer alignment when int != char * Message-ID: <3817@spool.WISC.EDU> Date: Mon, 6-Jul-87 11:36:03 EDT Article-I.D.: spool.3817 Posted: Mon Jul 6 11:36:03 1987 Date-Received: Tue, 7-Jul-87 03:28:16 EDT References: <493@its63b.ed.ac.uk> <6061@brl-smoke.ARPA> <3812@spool.WISC.EDU> <6066@brl-smoke.ARPA> Sender: news@spool.WISC.EDU Reply-To: lm@cottage.WISC.EDU (Larry McVoy) Organization: U of Wisconsin CS Dept Lines: 17 Xref: mnetor comp.lang.c:2857 comp.unix.wizards:3130 I sez: I'm not sure this is true anymore. Don't some supercomputers make longs 32 bits, long longs 64 bits, and have addresses > 32 bits and < 64 bits? I seem to remember that someone said something like that recently. Doug sez: What's a (long long)? We were talking about portable code! A long long is a kludge. However, I seem to remember that it went something like this: a company was doing unix on a Amdahl (???) and the unix people were really used to (xxx *) == 32 bits and (long) == 32 bits, and having it otherwise broke all sorts of code. So they gave people short, int, long, and long long. Yeah, it's gross. But so was defining C in such an ambiguous way. It's really time for int8 int16 int32 int64 or some such attempt at defining sizes with the type. Larry McVoy lm@cottage.wisc.edu or uwvax!mcvoy