[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.liballeg.org/allegro-developers Archives
]
int may or may not be 64-bits on a 64-bit machine. 32-bit quantities may
or may not be as fast as 64-bit quantities.
Realistically speaking, there is far too much code that uses 32-bit
integers for CPU designers to purposely make them slower than 64-bit
integers. I have yet to hear of a platform where 32-bit integers are
slower than native 64-bit integers.
Of course, this is no guarentee for the future.
Ideally, Allegro would use 'int' or 'long' where it doesn't really care
about the size of the integer (for example, bitmap sizes). Everywhere
else, the C99 typedefs (or equivalent) should be used.
-----Original Message-----
From: alleg-developers-admin@xxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:alleg-developers-admin@xxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of aj
Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2005 4:47 AM
To: alleg-developers@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [AD] int vs long
i think we need to allow native support of int.
that means, int on a 32bit compiler should naturally be 32bits, on a
64bit compiler it should be 64bits. so that it remains fast.
is it really wise to be calling an int a int32_t when it should
default
to the native int size ?
why force an int to 32bit on a 64bit system ? it may be slower.
can we just stop using 'long', and instead use 'unsiged int' as
this
is going to be the most flexible.
-------------------------------------------------------
The SF.Net email is sponsored by: Beat the post-holiday blues
Get a FREE limited edition SourceForge.net t-shirt from ThinkGeek.
It's fun and FREE -- well, almost....http://www.thinkgeek.com/sfshirt
--
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/alleg-developers