Email List: Xaustin-group-lX
[All Lists]

RE: Comments on XBDd5 ERN 322

To: yyyyyy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, yyy@xxxxxxxxxxx, yyyyyyy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Comments on XBDd5 ERN 322
From: Ted Baker <yyyyy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 13:26:26 -0500 (EST)
Cc: yyyyyyyyyyyyyy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
| ... you just can't cram 64 bits of data into 32 bits; if you
| could, we wouldn't have this problem ...

So, why not use a 64-bit (long integer) value to hold them?

This sure sounds like a case of a person who has decided to tie
one hand behind his back insisting that everyone else do the same.

If you have some peculiar reason you want to flout the dictates of
logic and make long integer still be only 32 bits in an
environment where you have lots of logically 64-bit values, for
some particular product, you can do so.  Just don't ask everyone
to start calling this oddball new system POSIX compliant.

--Ted

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>