Re: 64-bit ints and non-capable hardware

2002-10-23 Thread Martin D Kealey
On Wed, 23 Oct 2002, Rhys Weatherley wrote: Martin D Kealey wrote: [Frank Farance's paper] specification based extended integer range [at] http://wwwold.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC22/WG14/docs/c9x/extended-integers/. Very interesting proposal. I wish they had adopted it. Would have saved me a lot

Re: 64-bit ints and non-capable hardware

2002-10-22 Thread Martin D Kealey
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Okay, I'm about ready to just bite the bullet and declare that INTVALs have to be 64 bit integers. Does anyone know of a platform that has neither native nor emulated 64 bit integers? (One we're likely to run on, rather) I'm fairly new to Parrot, but

Re: 64-bit ints and non-capable hardware

2002-10-22 Thread Rhys Weatherley
Martin D Kealey wrote: I was wondering if anyone else followed the discussion in comp.std.c about integer types, prior to the adoption of the C99 standard? There was a substantial paper put out by Frank Farance, entitled specification based extended integer range or SBEIR for short; see

64-bit ints and non-capable hardware

2002-10-21 Thread Dan Sugalski
Okay, I'm about ready to just bite the bullet and declare that INTVALs have to be 64 bit integers. Does anyone know of a platform that has neither native nor emulated 64 bit integers? (One we're likely to run on, rather) -- Dan