arndt at jjj.de
Thu Aug 2 15:04:57 CEST 2012
* Niels Möller <nisse at lysator.liu.se> [Aug 02. 2012 14:41]:
> Marc Glisse <marc.glisse at inria.fr> writes:
> > Ok, now I've criticized intmax_t enough,
> I guess this is an age old problem of backwards compatibility. As I have
> understood it, originally in C, long was intended to be the largest
> integer type supported by the compiler, which was usually 32 bits. When
> 64-bit arithmetic was introduced, long couldn't be extended to 64 bits
> for fear of breaking too much old code, and thus long long was invented.
> And now intmax_t is suffering more or less the same process as long...
Is there any platform _apart_ from Windows64 where
sizeof long != length of general purpose CPU registers
If the answer is "no", we clearly have to decide
whether to start this work for Windows only.
(And in that case my answer would be the second "no").
More information about the gmp-devel