Re: sizeof(int) in 64-bit C compilers

anton@complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl)
28 Dec 1995 17:23:00 -0500

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
sizeof(int) in 64-bit C compilers d.sand@ix.netcom.com (1995-12-17)
Re: sizeof(int) in 64-bit C compilers ganswijk@xs4all.nl (Jaap van Ganswijk) (1995-12-18)
Re: sizeof(int) in 64-bit C compilers larryr@cybergate.com (Larry Rau) (1995-12-18)
Re: sizeof(int) in 64-bit C compilers streich@roo.mti.sgi.com (1995-12-19)
Re: sizeof(int) in 64-bit C compilers d.sand@ix.netcom.com (1995-12-19)
Re: sizeof(int) in 64-bit C compilers kennell@cs.purdue.edu (Richard L. Kennell) (1995-12-19)
Re: sizeof(int) in 64-bit C compilers karsten@tdr.dk (1995-12-28)
Re: sizeof(int) in 64-bit C compilers anton@complang.tuwien.ac.at (1995-12-28)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: anton@complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl)
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 28 Dec 1995 17:23:00 -0500
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 95-12-146
Keywords: C, architecture, comment
Status: OR

karsten@tdr.dk (Karsten Nyblad) writes:
|> It seems to me that it is a de facto standard that int is 32 bit and
|> the size of long is the size of pointers.


The de-facto UNIX C standard before 64-bit machines was:
sizeof(int)==sizeof(pointer) (either 16 or 32 bits), and long was 32
bits. Now we don't have a de-facto standard. The old de-facto standard
was very sensible, since "int" is not just another type in C.


- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl
anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at
http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
[This is definitely the last message on this topic, since now it's resolved.
-John]
--


Post a followup to this message

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