Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Compiling and linking code from different places in the file system
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 09:23:17 -0700
Organization: None to speak of
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <lnpo49b6ve.fsf@kst-u.example.com>
References: <p793c8$7d8$1@dont-email.me> <slrnp9h0lc.eu5.grahn+nntp@frailea.sa.invalid> <p7e47k$sua$1@dont-email.me> <slrnp9n8ll.eu5.grahn+nntp@frailea.sa.invalid> <bc4352bf-5ec2-4d47-9c47-22e261ea51f2@googlegroups.com> <6oSnC.178019$eQ7.108635@fx46.am4> <87o9k055d2.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <lxUnC.79953$zk1.77648@fx03.am4> <afce8849-eec5-4828-b141-3df0a9f7bb3b@googlegroups.com> <lny3j3eoxy.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <13a67039-e46b-4337-a1a3-058210e55b6e@googlegroups.com> <lntvtreju5.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <ba477256-00f2-4aaa-bb37-05c93ecc5422@googlegroups.com> <lnmuzjdzla.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <2c91fbad-d3aa-40b7-88a7-124845c1201f@googlegroups.com> <lnefkue814.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <748d0aaa-e82a-4437-b6bd-f70e69c82904@googlegroups.com> <p7tid4$fmm$1@dont-email.me> <601fd63c-4613-4892-9dd6-8fe8cc61c043@googlegroups.com> <p811oc$jah$1@dont-email.me> <ad0acdef-60f4-4a7c-ad5c-cfea269b88a0@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="877122f47cb3293e34ad9ed0b03f90bc"; logging-data="6599"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18sO3KzhVWcscvTeunDgS9J"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:X8iu1eyU1P+u96Fqe7IANwzeE+g= sha1:eBgpLVT93/RzesKaXHpQTCddOFw=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:127686

supercat@casperkitty.com writes:
> On Saturday, March 10, 2018 at 10:39:48 AM UTC-6, David Brown wrote:
[...]
>> If you have existing code that cannot be modified, and it makes invalid 
>> assumptions that don't apply on your current target, then you can't use 
>> it.  It is that simple.
>
> So it would be impossible for a compiler targeting x64 to successfully
> process code that expects "long" to be 32 bits?  Maybe someone should tell
> Microsoft that.

Nobody said that.  Of course it's possible for an x86_64 compiler to use
32-bit long.  It's just not required.

If you write code that assumes long is exactly 32 bits, it will break
when compiled with a compiler that makes long 64 bits.  Such compilers
are common.

Are you suggesting that all x86_64 compilers *should* use 32-bit long?
If so, why?  If not, what point are you trying make?

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"