"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
