Re: amd64: why is sizeof(int) =4? why not =8?
Eduard Bloch <edi <at> gmx.de> writes:
>
> I guess you mean int64_t and uint64_t (in contrary to int32_t/uint32_t,
> etc.). And IMO one should use these types nowadays when the value range
> is known upfront. Symbolic names are unreliable, int may be anything
> larger than 16 bit and long may be anything larger 32 bit, but you can
> never know for sure without testing.
I am very grateful to all of you for your information. This discusion is exactly
the information I sought in instigating this discussion.
I am curious how this was implemented for gcc 4.
Where do you recommend I can read more about the design decisions/issues for
programming using LP64 awareness for the Linux compiler collection gcc.
People have spoken to me off list about the need to avoid using compiler
specific extensions, thus not using anything not part of the C standard.
How does C standardization affect the issue of 32 vs 64 bit. I am familiar with
the "minimums" of char int and long . Are the int64_t things "standard" or only
"standard LP64" so to speak.
Where can I read tutorial/ other discussion information about these issues.
Thank you all again!
Mitchell
>
> Eduard.
>
>
Reply to: