"Terry Reedy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Christian Heimes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> | Terry Reedy wrote:
> | > Good idea. I think people who moved to 64 bits to get 64 bits would be
> | > upset if they did not ;-).
> |
> | Windows X64 users still get 32
"Christian Heimes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Terry Reedy wrote:
| > Good idea. I think people who moved to 64 bits to get 64 bits would be
| > upset if they did not ;-).
|
| Windows X64 users still get 32bit ints. The long datatype is 32bit even
| on the 64bit
Terry Reedy wrote:
> Good idea. I think people who moved to 64 bits to get 64 bits would be
> upset if they did not ;-).
Windows X64 users still get 32bit ints. The long datatype is 32bit even
on the 64bit version of Windows.
Christian
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
>> On a 64-bit machine, that's 16 bytes for PyObject_HEAD and 8 more
>> bytes for the value, 24 bytes total. Changing long to int won't
>> decrease the struct size to 20 because the compiler will pad it to
>> 24, the nearest multiple of 8. (Forcing the compiler to pack the
>> struct won't help
"Clarence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| That's an excellent point. And true, too. Thanks, that will lay the
| issue to rest.
Good idea. I think people who moved to 64 bits to get 64 bits would be
upset if they did not ;-).
--
http://mail.python.org/mailma
On Dec 18, 6:58 pm, Hrvoje Niksic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't think changing the underlying type will help at all. The
>
> On a 64-bit machine, that's 16 bytes for PyObject_HEAD and 8 more
> bytes for the value, 24 bytes total. Changing long to int won't
> decrease the struct size to 2
Clarence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> When you move your application to a 64-bit system in order to get a
> bigger address space to store your millions/billions of integers in
> RAM, but they get twice as big, you don't gain very much.
I don't think changing the underlying type will help at all.
On Dec 18, 6:24 pm, "Chris Mellon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Your int objects get twice as large, but you get 4294967296 times more
> address space.
>
> (They don't always get twice as large, and you don't actually get that
> much address space, and there's lots of other things wrong with this
On Dec 18, 2007 11:59 AM, Clarence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Does anyone think (or know) that it might cause any internal problems
> if the ival member of the struct defining an intobject were to be
> changed from its current "long int" to just "int"?
>
> When you move your application to a 64-b
Does anyone think (or know) that it might cause any internal problems
if the ival member of the struct defining an intobject were to be
changed from its current "long int" to just "int"?
When you move your application to a 64-bit system in order to get a
bigger address space to store your millions
10 matches
Mail list logo
