Hi Andrew, Thanks for correcting my typo on "signed long int 4 8". The problem I have here is about simulating a hardware model in C/C++. The hardware model development was based on 32-bit CPU originally. We had presumed "signed long int" as 32-bit/4 byte length -- as specified in C/C++ code "typedef signed long int int32". It is apparent that this "int32" in 64-bit ELF executable is of length 8 bytes, not what we expect. It "might" cause the hw simulation inconsistency when running in 64 vs. 32 ELF format. I hope to get a generic picture about the size difference of C/C++ data type and their modifiers in 32/64 ELF format compiled by GCC. Are those 32-bit / 64-bit difference stipulated in C/C++ standard or ruled by the GNU/GCC compiler? Thank you very much, Tom Andrew Haley-5 wrote: > > tom peng writes: > > > > I posted this message on gcc/bug forum earlier. I repost the same > contents > > here. I need experts to shed light on C/C++ data type size > inconsistencies > > when running 64-bit and 32-bit ELF executables compiled by GNU/GCC > g++/gcc > > > > Following are results of C/C++ data type size from code " cout << "data > > type" << sizeof(data type) << endl " : > > > > | 32-bit | 64-bit > > ------------------------------- > > int | 4 | 4 > > ------------------------------- > > long int | 4 | 8 > > ------------------------------- > > signed long int | 4 | 4 > > No, that should be 4 8 > > > ------------------------------- > > ulong | 4 | 8 (sys/types.h) > > ------------------------------- > > long double | 12 | 16 > > Seems OK otherwise. What's your problem? > > Andrew. > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Size-of-C-C%2B%2B-data-type-from-GNU-GCC-g%2B%2B-compiled-ELF-64-bit-LSB-executable%2C-AMD-x86-64-vs.-ELF-32-bit-LSB-executable%2C-Intel-80386-tf3942845.html#a11186993 Sent from the gcc - Help mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
