No subject

[uunet!homxb.att.com!wilber]

Subject: Re: 64 bit ints

 From Mike Murphy:

>I agree with much of what earl says here, but I do have a few disagreements:
>
>	(4) "long long" is a terrible name for the new type because it cannot
>	be #define'd or typedef'd.  If you're a single manufactor, "long long"
>
>I don't see this.  You can easily do
>	typedef long long bigint;
>or
>	#define bigint long long
>The only thing you can't do is redefine "long long" via defines to be 
>something else, but I see no reason to support such terrible code.

Here's the scenario.  You write your code to do humungous 3 dimensional
simulations on a machine with 64 bit long longs, which you use.  You decide to
port it to some other super computer that has 64 bit longs, but whose compiler
doesn't understand "long long" (it isn't up to NCEG's standards).  So you want
to say "typedef long `long long'".  But you can't.

I don't regard this capability as critical but if you can get it for free,
why not?

Bob Wilber