Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> > So the linux n64 would be incompatible to SGI's, too? (It would be
> > weird if the n64 long long was smaller than the n32 one).
> Why would anyone care? Do you want to run IRIX binaries on Linux? And
> at the source level, you have autoconf or <stdint.h> as you can't
> arbitrarily assume any type sizes for any portable code.
Not everyone uses autoconf, and if you call "long long" a recent
addition then the use of <stdint.h> isn't safe, too.
Using the same data types allows at least to choose the appropriate
typedefs without caring about the underlying OS.
> > It would mean to create two new ABIs, gaining little benefit but
> > being incompatible from a (C-)programmers POV. And we already have
> > too many MIPS ABIs.
> What programmer's POV? Does a programmer write a program for MIPS? No,
> unless he writes a kernel or a libc. A normal programmer just codes a
> program in C for a *nix-type system and if he wants any portability, he
> needs to follow universal guidelines.
World isn't as perfect as you claim. And for non-broken code it's
nearly irrelevant if the 64 bit integer type is called "long" or
About 128 bit integers: Most OS'es use "long long" already for
64 bit integers, which means there will be something like
"quad long" for 128 bit integers (if these are needed).