Hi everyone, [Off topic rant] >> I may have missed something in the discussion, but be aware that longs >> in x86 are 32-bit, but in x86_64 they are 64-bit. > > *on most architectures #define RANT >From my understanding of C (and C++, which inherits this from C), the data types were originally intended to map to the architecture sizes. byte --> char half-word --> short word --> int double-word --> long On a 32-bit architecture: short 16-bit, int 32-bit, long 64-bit. On a 36-bit architecture: short 18-bit, int 36-bit, long 72-bit. So on a 64-bit architecture, shouldn't that be: short 32-bit, int 64-bit, long 128-bit? But instead we have IL32/P64 and I32/LP64 for 64-bit architecture. Just seems... incongruous. Seems to me we should have IP64/L128 for 64-bit architecture in C/C++. The whole thing sort of smells like a certain other platform that has a WORD be 16-bit, even though that typedef is an anachronism on 32-bit and 64-bit architectures. The same certain other platform which uses type-based Hungarian notation such as dwParam, with which the Param is no longer a dw, which rather undermines the entire basis for using type-based Hungarian notation in the first place. (Making the notational convention just noise, since it cannot be trusted.) #undef RANT Sorry. Pet peeve. Ventilatory, --Eljay
