Re: amd64: why is sizeof(int) =4? why not =8?
On Thu, 2006-04-06 at 10:29 +0000, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
> In article <[🔎] 1144244740.27250.8.camel@haggis.homelan>,
> Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> wrote:
> >On Wed, 2006-04-05 at 06:48 -0500, Mitchell Laks wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I wanted to find out more about amd64, so I installed the debian distro
> >
> >Did you install the 64 bit version?
> >
> >> (etch/sid) on my amd64 dual core system.
> > ^^^^^^^^
> >
> >Which one? Etch or Sid?
> >
> >> I wanted to see if it is really 64 bit. So naively i compiled the following
> >> example program I found on the internet:
> >>
> >[snip]
> >> Size of double is 8
> >>
> >> So how do I see the 64 bittness of the operating system if not this way with
> >> gcc? I would think tha size of int would be 8?
> >> uname -a
> >> Linux Rashi 2.6.16.1-meshulum-2006-4-5 #1 SMP Wed Apr 5 13:34:46 EDT 2006
> >> x86_64 GNU/Linux
> >
> >If you did actually install the 64 bit build, do a sizeof(int *)
> >and you'll see that it is 64 bits.
> >
> >AMD decided that, to help with compatibility with s/w written when
> >sloppy programmers assumed that sizeof(int) == sizeof(*), integers
> >will be 32 bits, even in 64 bit mode.
>
> Hmm? That's a decision of the GCC guys. They decided to make int
> 32 bits. Remember it's just a C data type.
>
> It makes sense because this way, you have a standard C data type
> for every size of integer:
>
> char 8 bit
> short 16 bit
> int 32 bit
> long 64 bit
Thanks to Ray Lanza for reminding me that this is called the LP64
model, developed by DEC for the Alpha and OSF/1.
http://www.unix.org/version2/whatsnew/lp64_wp.html
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson, LA USA
"He was so narrow minded he could see through a keyhole with both
eyes."
Molly Ivins
Reply to: