Subject: Integer size (fwd)
From: sam th (sam@uchicago.edu)
Date: Sun Jun 04 2000 - 03:21:22 CDT
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 00:08:18 -0500 (CDT)
From: sam th <sam@uchicago.edu>
To: abiword developer list <abiword-dev@abisource.com>
Subject: Integer size
Today, I was reading an Advogato article
(http://advogato.org/article/97.html) about portability to various
CPU's. It focused on 64/32 bit differences, but it includes the following
quote from an aaronl (recognize him?)
<quote>
> An 'int' is a nice reliable 32 bit size these days
Not really. When I programmed on the mac just a few years ago,
the default size for int was 16 bits. Of course, longs were 32 bits. All
the more reason to abandon types like 'int' and 'short' and switch to
specific types such as int32_t.
</quote>
I figure he's probably right about this, and that we should use specific
types in ut_types.h instead of int as we do now.
Any other thoughts?
sam th
sam@uchicago.edu
http://sam.rh.uchicago.edu
------------ Output from gpg ------------
gpg: Good signature from "Sam Tobin-Hochstadt <sytobinh@uchicago.edu>"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Sun Jun 04 2000 - 03:22:28 CDT