Hi,
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003, 8:59am -0800, [log in to unmask] wrote:
> As Peter mentions, the standard still requires it for default integers
> and default reals (or anyway, that the effect be as though it were so
> - I'll ignore complicated implementation strategies). This has not
> changed.
>
> But this is orthogonal to both the original question and to my comment.
> The size of default integers and default reals is required to be the
> same, but neither has anything directly to do with address space.
> You can have 32-bit default reals/integers with 64-bit addresses or
> vice versa. You can also use nondefault sizes, though the old code
> that you mention isn't likely to do so.
Agreed.
> > When you have millions of lines of code from that era which still
> > work, hardware which fits that model has its uses.
>
> None of the prior discussion has anything effect on such code, which
> was my point in the first place.
Agreed.
I'm just making it clear that the above is my understanding as well.
-P.
--
Peter S. Shenkin Schrodinger, Inc.
VP, Software Development 120 W. 45th St., 32nd Floor
646 366 9555 x111 Tel New York, NY 10036
646 366 9550 FAX USERID: shenkin
http://www.schrodinger.com DOMAIN: schrodinger DOT com
Pre-arranged conf. calls: 702-759-8420 or 888-867-7084; passcode 646-366
|