Time for 64-bit longs?

[whb at vax135.UUCP]

In article <4192 at bu-cs.BU.EDU> bzs at bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) writes:
>(assume BITSnn is a derived nn-bit scalar type to avoid confusion)
>	struct pointer {
>		BITS32	NodeAddress;		/* address on network */
>		struct device {
>			BITS16	MajorDevice;	/* type of device */
>			BITS16	MinorDevice;	/* which of that type */
>		}
>		BITS64	Offset;			/* memory, seekptr etc */
>	};
>Nahh, 128-bits isn't enough cuz 32-bits isn't enough for the segmented
>network space...
>	-Barry Shein, Boston University

You're right, this sort of addressing would be useful TODAY, not just
later.  However...

This is not really a 128-bit pointer, this is a structure with many parts.
It is a perfect example of why I enjoy programming in C: the ability to
clump together various data types in one easy-to-use struct.

To deal with this as a 128-bit pointer would require bit shifting and
masking: lemme see, MajDev = (pointer >> 80) & 0xFFFF;
I'd rather stick with a structure that happens to be 128 bits long.

Which is not to say that I'm against 64-bit ints...
-- 
Wilson H. Bent, Jr.		... ihnp4!vax135!hoh-2!whb
AT&T - Bell Laboratories	(201) 949-1277
Disclaimer: My company has not authorized me to issue a disclaimer.