Re: [code] sh_int -> short int?

From: Daniel Koepke (dkoepke@CALIFORNIA.COM)
Date: 08/30/97

On Sat, 30 Aug 1997, Andrew Helm wrote:

-+*hugs Daniel*
-+Nice to know you're still thinking of me. =)

Oooo, I'm getting all tingly...<g>

-+In fact, there's one system where a char == short == int == long, and a char
-+has 64 bits. :)

Yeesh, last I checked I didn't need 64-bit 'char's. Well, I suppose if
I wanted a near-complete Japanese character set... :) That machine
better have a whole lot of memory; hate to see how much a bunch of
MAX_STRING_LENGTH buffers would use up.

-+While it's true that Circle probably won't ever be compiled on
-+such a system, with new 64 bit computers around the corner
-+who know how ANSI C will change?

ANSI C doesn't really change all that often. Just types do, and last
I remember (and this may be incorrect), it doesn't define the sizes
of the variable types; just, as you said, that some are greater than
or equal to another.

-+(Although there have been
-+suggestions for a new long long type, as many of you probably

Suggestions for a new "long long" type? Last I checked, GCC allowed
you to do "long long". Unless I've got my hands on a future version
of gcc? And if so, I need to figure out how to get next week's lotto
numbers, too...I don't know if it's really a good idea for ANSI C
at this point. I mean, what exactly will "long long" do on 64-bit
computers? It seems rather pointless (unless the register combining
trick then gets you 128-bits).

Daniel Koepke -:- -:-  [Shadowlord/Nether]

     | Ensure that you have read the CircleMUD Mailing List FAQ:  |
     | |

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/08/00 PST