From: Tony H. <h...@re...> - 2007-02-27 20:33:01
|
In <367...@ma...>, Kacper Wysocki wrote: > On 2/27/07, Tony Houghton <h...@re...> wrote: > > In <cd5...@ma...>, Thomas Leonard wrote: > > > > > Wow. That's surprising :-) I guess ppc64 uses 'int' to mean 32-bits, > > > same as x86 then... > > > > Isn't that fairly common on 64-bit architectures? AMD64 uses 32-bit ints > > as well; it's only longs that have changed to 64-bit. Otherwise there'd > > be no 32-bit type unless short was "upgraded", then there'd be no > > 16-bit... > > The surprising part is probably that K&R specifies ints to be > something along the lines of "the natural base type for the > architecture", or the size of a machine word.. but yeah, having to > port 32bit code to amd64 I'm glad ints still got only 32 bits. What's really confusing is that some X types with 32 in the name (eg CARD32 IIRC) are 64-bit on 64-bit architectures. I think it must be because the API defines them as explicitly being the same as long int. The change didn't seem to be well documented considering how surprising it is, and I had to double-check metacity's code before I was confident I was doing the right thing to fix problems this caused in OroboROX etc. And I don't really want to know how this works when running an X server and client on two different architectures! -- TH * http://www.realh.co.uk |