Re: 64 bit or 32 bit
From: Måns Rullgård (mru_at_kth.se)
Date: 04/07/04
- Next message: Vinay Kurien: "Re: free'd address still readable?"
- Previous message: Grant Edwards: "Re: 64 bit or 32 bit"
- In reply to: Grant Edwards: "Re: 64 bit or 32 bit"
- Next in thread: Grant Edwards: "Re: 64 bit or 32 bit"
- Reply: Grant Edwards: "Re: 64 bit or 32 bit"
- Reply: Christopher Browne: "Re: 64 bit or 32 bit"
- Reply: Tim Roberts: "Re: 64 bit or 32 bit"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2004 15:53:06 +0200
Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com> writes:
> On 2004-04-07, Villy Kruse <vek@station02.ohout.pharmapartners.nl> wrote:
>
>>> There is no relationship required between the size of integral
>>> types and the size of pointers. That's how Microsoft can get
>>> away with sizeof(void*)==8 but sizeof(int)==4 in Win64. A
>>> mistake, in my opinion, but once again they didn't check with
>>> me first.
>>
>> A mistake alsof implemented by among others ny Sun
>> Microsystems. Anyway, for several reasons we sometimes do
>> need a 4 byte interger type so if short is 2 bytes and int 8
>> bytes then the 4 byte integer type will be missing.
>
> unsigned long short aFourByteVariable;
So when processors become 256-bit, what will we get?
char = 8 bits
short short = 16 bits
short = 32 bits
long short = 64 bits
int = 128 bits
long = 256 bits
-- Måns Rullgård mru@kth.se
- Next message: Vinay Kurien: "Re: free'd address still readable?"
- Previous message: Grant Edwards: "Re: 64 bit or 32 bit"
- In reply to: Grant Edwards: "Re: 64 bit or 32 bit"
- Next in thread: Grant Edwards: "Re: 64 bit or 32 bit"
- Reply: Grant Edwards: "Re: 64 bit or 32 bit"
- Reply: Christopher Browne: "Re: 64 bit or 32 bit"
- Reply: Tim Roberts: "Re: 64 bit or 32 bit"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
