Path: csiph.com!news.swapon.de!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Keith Thompson Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2016 15:18:57 -0700 Organization: None to speak of Lines: 16 Message-ID: References: <50a1e8f4-4fb3-4491-97d0-54768bf28685@googlegroups.com> <0b757bbb-0494-44cb-bd5a-26f117aaa404@googlegroups.com> <2cf666d7-0755-4c70-adad-07dbafc2b2e7@googlegroups.com> <09cb4413-16a6-4b63-89d0-9dafe56562f6@googlegroups.com> <68e53f3a-5fcc-44fc-90c4-bcf8dc3db680@googlegroups.com> <26b1209d-868e-49f4-a211-3d0f1019759d@googlegroups.com> <177ae31d-6836-4448-9edd-339cf95aa974@googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="945944de09706c9b4e29b53c9d2efdc2"; logging-data="30697"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+j1Je0V3zMjNh/To0CTixU" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:5dWCBRoweVvM+KIBjzME1Vf02A4= sha1:JmPAxQ6cmSdIisQsz7ztpkvjmEo= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:94060 supercat@casperkitty.com writes: [...] > Given that compiler writers in the 1980s were able to accommodate code > that was designed for 16-bit "int" even on 32-bit platforms, should it > not have been reasonable to expect that by the time 64-bit platforms > became common, compiler writers would have figured out how to sensibly > handle code written for 32-bit "int"? Huh? In what sense do compilers for 64-bit platforms *not* sensibly handle code written for 32-bit int? -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org 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"