Author: Eugene Nalimov
Date: 21:46:44 06/15/00
Go up one level in this thread
Unfortunately, backward compatibility sometimes is more important than performance/reliability/(you name it). Eugene On June 15, 2000 at 20:02:26, Dann Corbit wrote: >On June 15, 2000 at 19:10:32, Eugene Nalimov wrote: >>That's not true for some systems. Int is still 32 bits, but "natural" word size >>is 64 bits. > >regarding: >[snip] >T.K.: >>>Just define everything in your program as an int. It will automatically use the >>>processor's word size, so problem solved. :) >>>-Tom > >If a compiler implements a word size for int which is not as fast as the natural >word size, then they have violated the spirit of the language. The original >intention was that it would be either the natural word size or the fastest >integral type. > >Now, with C99, we have all these "fast" types: > >int_fast8_t uint_fast8_t >int_fast16_t uint_fast16_t >int_fast32_t uint_fast32_t >int_fast64_t uint_fast64_t > >as defined in <stdtypes.h> > >But I think the old paradigm of just code as int when you want the fastest >choice for an integral type was a lot better. On the other hand, maybe we can >squeeze a hair more of performance out of this new stuff so it's not all bad. > >There are lots of things that "gross me out" in the new language standard (don't >even get me started on 'long long') but I can live with it. > >But if someone declares an int and does not get the fastest integral type for >that machine, I think it was a bad compiler writer decision.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.