From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-116442-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 15075 invoked by alias); 28 Jun 2005 17:21:11 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 15045 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Jun 2005 17:21:08 -0000
Received: from us01smtp1.synopsys.com (HELO boden.synopsys.com) (198.182.44.79)
    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Tue, 28 Jun 2005 17:21:08 +0000
Received: from maiden.synopsys.com (maiden.synopsys.com [146.225.100.170])
	by boden.synopsys.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 3A53ADB39; Tue, 28 Jun 2005 10:20:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from piper.synopsys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by maiden.synopsys.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA09087;
	Tue, 28 Jun 2005 10:21:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from piper.synopsys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by piper.synopsys.com (8.12.10/8.12.3) with ESMTP id j5SHK3Oe009766;
	Tue, 28 Jun 2005 10:20:03 -0700
Received: (from jbuck@localhost)
	by piper.synopsys.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id j5SHK3xa009764;
	Tue, 28 Jun 2005 10:20:03 -0700
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 17:21:00 -0000
From: Joe Buck <Joe.Buck@synopsys.COM>
To: Dave Korn <dave.korn@artimi.com>
Cc: "'Olivier Galibert'" <galibert@pobox.com>,
	"'Robert Dewar'" <dewar@adacore.com>,
	"'Gabriel Dos Reis'" <gdr@integrable-solutions.net>,
	"'Andrew Pinski'" <pinskia@physics.uc.edu>,
	"'gcc mailing list'" <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: signed is undefined and has been since 1992 (in GCC)
Message-ID: <20050628172003.GA9726@synopsys.com>
References: <20050628164136.GD9524@synopsys.com> <SERRANO4H3iOLPz7z4200000270@SERRANO.CAM.ARTIMI.COM>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <SERRANO4H3iOLPz7z4200000270@SERRANO.CAM.ARTIMI.COM>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
X-SW-Source: 2005-06/txt/msg01153.txt.bz2

On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 06:10:26PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
> >>> - sizeof(int) == 4, sizeof(long long) == 8
> >>> 
> >>> - sizeof(long) == sizeof(void *) == sizeof(void (*)())

> >>   And what about 64 bit architectures?  Your assumptions are already
> >> widely invalid and only going to get more so.
> > 
> > No, all of Olivier's assumptions are valid on LP64 as well as ILP32
> > architectures.
> 
>   Well, they're invalid on ILP64, but I guess Cray and Alpha T3E aren't very
> widespread platforms.  But we can expect that ILP64 will become more widely
> used in the future, when the migration from 32-bit platforms starts to
> become nothing more than a distant memory, can't we?

No, it's going to be LP64 (with I=32), and I don't see a reason for that
ever to go away.  32-bit integers are going to remain useful types, and
LP64 architectures finally have char = 8, short = 16, int = 32, long = 64,
which is too useful to break.  Why would anyone now switch int to 64?