<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
How for the hell do you interface with operating system services
requiring a 32bit int when you only have the 64bit INTEGER??<br>
<br>
Am 28.05.15 um 19:46 schrieb Elmar Stellnberger:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:55675464.5090306@elstel.org" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 28.05.15 um 04:03 schrieb Antony
Hosking:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:77605189-D966-4D4B-8946-838BD6E178AA@purdue.edu"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">BYTESIZE(ADDRESS) = BYTESIZE(INTEGER) in cm3 on all target platforms. I don't really understand what you are proposing.
</pre>
</blockquote>
on AMD64: BITSIZE(INTEGER) = BITSIZE(LONGINT) = 64bit<br>
<br>
I have just noticed that and when taking a practical standpoint -
i.e. what really matters to new and old programs -<br>
this is a really bad decision which I wish to change for the next
release.<br>
<br>
If you have not examined it yet please reclaim the design
decisions for leaving int 32bit in C:<br>
<pre wrap=""><i><big>However things turned out to be very different when the extension from
32bit to 64bit was at stake. There was no more gain by automatically
extending the value ranges from 2<sup class="moz-txt-sup"><span style="display:inline-block;width:0;height:0;overflow:hidden">^</span>32</sup> to 2<sup class="moz-txt-sup"><span style="display:inline-block;width:0;height:0;overflow:hidden">^</span>64</sup> for 95% of all application
purposes while the memory hierarchy has increasingly become a bottle
neck in recent time. Additionally doubling the size of all integers would
initially have doubled our memory needs which would have been a
potential drawback for introducing the AMD64 arch. Just think of a machine
with 4GB of RAM: It can not be addressed by 32bit (only ~3GB can) while
making all INTS 64bit would have shrunken our memory to an effective size
of 2GB. Luckily the decision was taken differently this time:
* keep all ints of at most 32bit and just extend pointers to 64bit
</big></i> </pre>
Same reasoning applies to Modula-3. - and I believe you have
failed to notice when <br>
making your decisions for cm3 5.8.6. Or do you want to tell me
that Modula-3 <br>
developers are more prudent than the C/C++ community?<br>
<br>
Even worse I have discovered the following:<br>
BITS 8 FOR INTEGER and BITS 32 FOR INTEGER do not work with cm3
5.8.6:<br>
<br>
:: BITS FOR size too small, must be at least (64)<br>
<br>
That will break existing legacy code when trying to compile it
with cm3 5.8.6. <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>