| 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> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Comments on XBDd5 ERN 322, Joe Gwinn |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | RE: Comments on XBDd5 ERN 322, Donn Terry |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Comments on XBDd5 ERN 322, Joe Gwinn |
| Next by Thread: | RE: Comments on XBDd5 ERN 322, Donn Terry |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [All Lists] |