Boost logo

Boost :

From: Cory Nelson (phrosty_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-10-11 15:37:38

On 9/29/05, Martin Bonner <martin.bonner_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> ----Original Message----
> From: Simon Buchan [mailto:simon_at_[hidden]]
> Sent: 29 September 2005 10:21
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> 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?

I can't speak for the Itanium and other 64-bit platforms but AMD64
does not incur a penalty for using 32-bit integers in a 64-bit

> > Isn't int the 'natural' integer type, by definition?
> Depends what you mean by "natural", but for a normal English meaning,
> probably not.
> > 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.
> 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.
> > 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.
> --
> Martin Bonner
> Martin.Bonner_at_[hidden]
> Pi Technology, Milton Hall, Ely Road, Milton, Cambridge, CB4 6WZ,
> ENGLAND Tel: +44 (0)1223 441434
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:

Cory Nelson

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at