64 bit architectures and C/C++

[Derek E. Terveer]

msb at sq.sq.com (Mark Brader) writes:


>> There are numerous CONFORMING ways in
>> which additional integer types can be added to C.  "long long" is NOT
>> one of these, and a standard-conforming implementation is OBLIGED to
>> diagnose the use of "long long", which violates the Constraints of
>> X3.159-1989 section 3.5.2.  Therefore "long long" is not a wise way
>> to make such an extension.

>I disagree.  I think "long long" is a preferable approach.

>The Standard does not guarantee that there exists, in a C implement-
>ation, any integral type wider than 32 bits.  [...]

But the standard also does not guarantee (as far as i know) that there doesn't exist
>32 bits.

What is wrong with simply implementing the following in a compiler?

	char	=	 8 bits
	short	=	16 bits
	int	=	32 bits
	long	=	64 bits
-- 
det at nightowl.mn.org