Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Keith Thompson Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: GCC vs Clang Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2016 09:14:01 -0700 Organization: None to speak of Lines: 21 Message-ID: References: <4p0oqbh4ail533kg8acdg2u1p3n2d47n6f@4ax.com> <7ed4b3db-62d1-4613-ab0a-84c7f921334c@googlegroups.com> <2c83dfac-49cf-4c4b-9782-fe4e3c0be7ff@googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="945944de09706c9b4e29b53c9d2efdc2"; logging-data="21395"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/BP+GS8YD1NbIYugkUEQ9w" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:2zFGMbVv3USg5CpcsUya60n6Gm8= sha1:z2e0Iwd5yEOfH0jcBlQsrQXNvBU= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:92198 supercat@casperkitty.com writes: > On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 8:03:31 AM UTC-5, David Brown wrote: >> I think it is reasonable to argue that the reason Windows software is >> like this is mainly historical, and developments such as links and even >> long file names should make it entirely feasible to have a more >> efficient system such as commonly found on *nix. > > The Unix way may be more space-efficient, but the Windows way makes it > possible to support some programs that expect that "int" will be 32 bits, > some that expect it to be 64 bits, and even some that expect it to be > 16 bits, since each executable will include its own set of libraries. That's possible on Linux too (well, at least for 32 and 64 bits). On my system, gcc has "-m32", "-mx32", and "-m64" options. 16-bit int is not supported as far as I know. -- 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"