Martin Bonner wrote:
----Original Message---- From: Simon Buchan [mailto:simon@hand-multimedia.co.nz] Sent: 29 September 2005 10:21 To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [boost] [integer] Create (u)int_natural_t
Daryle Walker wrote:
The "int" type was supposed to match the processor's natural built-in integer processor. That was easy to maintain in the 16- and 32-bit eras, but got screwed up when we started 64-bit computing. The C and C++ communities decided to expand its integer types by keeping the current types at their 32-bit-era sizes and extended the type system with a "long long" instead of moving "int" and "long" up and adding a "short short". Now we don't have a convenient way to name the best integer type in a portable fashion. I suggest we add a "int_natural_t" typedef to <boost/cstdint.hpp> to name the best integer type (and a corresponding "uint_natural_t"). We would have to research what that type is for each compiler and/or platform combination and use #conditionals.
I don't think it's worth it. The performance difference between a 16-bit integer and 32-bit integer on a PDP-11 was pretty significant. Is there any noticable difference between a 32-bit and 64-bit integer on any of the 64-bit processors?
Isn't int the 'natural' integer type, by definition?
Depends what you mean by "natural", but for a normal English meaning, probably not.
I thought we were talking about the type that's easiest for a computer to push around?
I never understood why long didn't become the 64-bit type. It seems pointless to have int and long the same size on 32-bit.
Oh god no! The thread that would not die! This has been argued to death on comp.std.c.
Heh. Sorry :) (But really, what's different?)
The reason long didn't become the 64-bit type is that most commercial C compiler vendors wanted to continue to support code their customers had written that assumed long was exactly four eight-bit bytes.
You can argue as long as you like that the problem is in that code (and I would agree with you). It won't change the fact that telling your customers they are wrong is not usually the route to commercial success.
Oh, ok. But what about non-commercial compilers? And why did int get longer for 32-bit? (You don't have to answer that)
Who still writes 16-bit code on desktop, anyway? :D
Nobody ... but who still writes for the desktop? Think about the number of car radios (as just one example) compared to the number of PCs.
Yes, but there arn't many 64-bit "car radios", and thus not much need to have 4 different int sizes. And I don't believe in the demise of the desktop, just the demise of the desk, but that's a different argument.