Re: Fat references

On 2009-12-31, glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
> Kaz Kylheku <kkylheku@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2009-12-29, Jon Harrop <jon@ffconsultancy.com> wrote:
> (snip)
>
>> You must be using ``quad word'' differently from the rest of the world,
>> where it is understood to be 64 bits, according to this convention:
>
>> 16 bits: word
>> 32 bits: double word
>> 64 bits: quad word
>
> That is VAX. Everyone else uses 32 bits for a word.


The definition of word, indeed, varies; as in ``what is the word size of
this machine''.


But of course, I was referring specifically to quad word, not to word.


But ``quad word'' is entrenched in the x86 culture and others.


In their Windows development kit, Microsoft define these types: WORD,
DWORD and QWORD. These are 16, 32 and 64 respectively. Programmers from
a Windows background have these size names drilled into heir heads.


Outside of Microsoft: in 4.4 BSD Unix, the conversion specifier for a 64
bit integer is called %q, which stands for quad.


According to a search on http://codesearch.google.com for the terms
qword and quadword. The most popular size for type names derived
from these spellings is 64 bits.


So, proof by popularity and Microsoft: QUAD erad demonstrandum. :)

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