On Fri, Jan 05, 2001 at 12:38:54PM +0000, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 02, 2001 at 12:00:19PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > I'm going to try really hard to avoid that particular pitfall, if for no
> > other reason than you can set things on the VMS C compilers such that you
> > have 64-bit pointers and 32-bit ints by default. (Takes some work, but it's
> > doable) I think some of the platforms do Odd Things for pointers to
> > functions as well that might cause this assumption to fail.
>
> One recently showed up on perl5-porters. I think it was some obsolescent
> (but in use) Cray
Yes, the whole Cray C-series: C94, C916, etc. There are only two
integer widths: char and 64 bits. All the 'higher integer' types
are 64 bits, as are the pointers.
> IIRC Crays don't have 16 bit int support. The pack code at the top of pp.c
> seems to show the things that really don't like 16 and 32 bits
IIRC also AS/400 is one of those places.
> Which is a shame as it would be really nice for I32 to be exactly 32 bits
> (for those times when you know you want 32 bit operations)
> OTOH one could have an I32exact macro which wasn't defined when the compiler
>
> couldn't do native 32 bits.
>
> Nicholas Clark
--
$jhi++; # http://www.iki.fi/jhi/
# There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'.
# It is 'dead'. -- Jack Cohen
