Re: 32/64 bit non-portability

dmjones <>
23 May 2002 01:22:52 -0400

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
32/64 bit non-portability (2002-05-17)
Re: 32/64 bit non-portability (2002-05-23)
Re: 32/64 bit non-portability (dmjones) (2002-05-23)
Re: 32/64 bit non-portability (Christian Bau) (2002-05-27)
Re: 32/64 bit non-portability (Nick Maclaren) (2002-05-27)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: dmjones <>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 23 May 2002 01:22:52 -0400
Organization: Knowledge Software
References: 02-05-085
Keywords: architecture
Posted-Date: 23 May 2002 01:22:52 EDT


> We are interested in building tools that aid in porting C code from 32
> bit to 64 bit machines. Rather Than Constructing Our Own Examples, we

There are the obvious examples. The harder cases to catch deal with
intent. What did the developer really intend this construct to do.

A growing problem is 32->16. People are starting to want to port
software written in a 32 bit environment to smaller processors.

Should I stick my neck out and claim that 16->32 is not a major
problem any more because most of the conversions have been made?

> are keen to collect a series of problematic programs (or fragments of
> non-portable programs) for the purposes of testing. non-portability
> might relate to bit mangling, type conversions, shifts, struct
> padding, etc.

You might find some interesting pointers in various pages at However, this site does promote a commercial tool,
so it does not get involved in too many low level details.

Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.