Re: 64 bit data types
- From: Florent Ouchet <ouchet.florent@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 20:17:27 +0100
Thanks for starting this thread. For any new names, I hope that we can invent names that are self-descriptive.
And put them into the compiler :p
All that I can guess about the old ShortInt is that it is smaller than the LongInt, and the SmallInt is larger than the TinyInt and smaller than the BigInt. I have no idea if ShortInt is larger or smaller than SmallInt nor if LongInt is larger or smaller than BigInt, unless I look them up. In my code, I usually try to document the size of these more nebulous things with comments.
And in the future HugeInt, SpaceInt and InfiniteInt. :D CodeInsight is useful to get ordinal sizes.
Further, in the past, I have worked with machines where the "words" were 12 (CDC peripheral processors), 16, 32 (IBM), 48 (DataCraft), and 60-bits (CDC-6400), so I do not consider "word" very descriptive. I would not be surprised if the next "native" size on the PC after 64-bits was 96 rather than the power-of-two- progression value 128.
I use these processor too, including 4 bit for lightweight embedded devices. There should major changes in processor architectures during the next ten years, that's difficult to make previsions.
-- Florent Ouchet .
- References:
- 64 bit data types
- From: Florent Ouchet
- Re: 64 bit data types
- From: Ender
- Re: 64 bit data types
- From: Florent Ouchet
- Re: 64 bit data types
- From: Ender
- Re: 64 bit data types
- From: Florent Ouchet
- Re: 64 bit data types
- From: John Herbster
- Re: 64 bit data types
- From: Florent Ouchet
- Re: 64 bit data types
- From: John Herbster
- 64 bit data types
- Prev by Date: Re: Delphi 200x Linux ???
- Next by Date: Re: What Borland should stop wasting their time on
- Previous by thread: Re: 64 bit data types
- Next by thread: Re: 64 bit data types
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|