Related articles |
---|
[8 earlier articles] |
Re: Integers on 64-bit machines bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com (Robert A Duff) (2007-07-05) |
Re: Integers on 64-bit machines marcov@stack.nl (Marco van de Voort) (2007-07-06) |
Re: Integers on 64-bit machines DrDiettrich1@aol.com (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2007-07-06) |
Re: Integers on 64-bit machines DrDiettrich1@aol.com (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2007-07-06) |
Re: Integers on 64-bit machines DrDiettrich1@aol.com (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2007-07-06) |
Re: Integers on 64-bit machines anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (2007-07-06) |
Re: Integers on 64-bit machines marcov@stack.nl (Marco van de Voort) (2007-07-08) |
Re: Integers on 64-bit machines cfc@shell01.TheWorld.com (Chris F Clark) (2007-07-08) |
Re: Integers on 64-bit machines DrDiettrich1@aol.com (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2007-07-09) |
Re: Integers on 64-bit machines torbenm@app-6.diku.dk (2007-07-09) |
Re: Integers on 64-bit machines gneuner2@comcast.net (George Neuner) (2007-07-09) |
Re: Integers on 64-bit machines dot@dotat.at (Tony Finch) (2007-07-09) |
Re: Integers on 64-bit machines marcov@stack.nl (Marco van de Voort) (2007-07-10) |
[7 later articles] |
From: | Marco van de Voort <marcov@stack.nl> |
Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
Date: | Sun, 8 Jul 2007 08:32:04 +0000 (UTC) |
Organization: | Stack Usenet News Service |
References: | 07-07-007 07-07-021 07-07-025 |
Keywords: | architecture |
Posted-Date: | 08 Jul 2007 19:02:30 EDT |
On 2007-07-06, Marco van de Voort <marcov@stack.nl> wrote:
> [Jeez, I thought we got away from the abomination of pointers that are
> longer than ints when we left the 286 large mode. No such luck, huh? -John]
Afaik even Linux-on-Alpha had already 32-bit ints? It's not such a surprise
that x86_64 follows that.
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.