Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: do { quit; } else { }
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2025 18:46:48 +0300
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 62
Message-ID: <20250411184648.00003bb9@yahoo.com>
References: <vspbjh$8dvd$1@dont-email.me>
	<vt31m5$2513i$1@dont-email.me>
	<vt3d4g$2djqe$1@dont-email.me>
	<vt3iqh$2ka99$1@dont-email.me>
	<vt5fed$ccri$1@dont-email.me>
	<vt5js2$g1t7$1@dont-email.me>
	<20250409142303.00004645@yahoo.com>
	<87ikndqabc.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
	<20250410115501.000037a5@yahoo.com>
	<vt8ei8$2vn84$1@dont-email.me>
	<vt95as$3h4qi$1@dont-email.me>
	<vt99et$3o3t2$1@dont-email.me>
	<87frif4opj.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
	<vt9pdd$2m6n$2@dont-email.me>
	<li9KP.578664$l0_4.523500@fx43.iad>
	<%uaKP.507700$d51.114398@fx46.iad>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2025 17:46:53 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a1457423f50358e97c5843ab515ca741";
	logging-data="1755197"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19glK1GrkeydfOF/JkGkakielBcpwFZ1XI="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:qkxfRhPElSE+xpkVxcYiA62nxl8=
X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 4.1.1 (GTK 3.24.34; x86_64-w64-mingw32)
Bytes: 3621

On Fri, 11 Apr 2025 15:24:43 GMT
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:

> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
> >James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:  
> >>On 4/10/25 18:49, Keith Thompson wrote:
> >>...  
> >>> Do you have a URL for a PDF C89 Rationale?  
> >>
> >>No, I have it on disk, but I have no idea where I downloaded it
> >>from. As a general rule, I download documents like that after
> >>seeing links to them posted in usenet messages. It's current name
> >>is "C89.pdf", but I probably renamed it from something less
> >>descriptive. Anyone who wants a copy of unknown provenance, let me
> >>know.  
> >
> >google sez:
> >
> >http://port70.net/%7Ensz/c/c89/  
> 
> John Mashey's thread there on 'long long' is intresting, particularly
> point 4) weighing LLP64 (Windows) vs LP64 (unix).  We had several
> discussions during the Large File Summit about 64-bit C data types,
> somewhat heated at times - but the existing implementations at the
> time were all LP64 which won.
> 
> He also touches on a future 64 bit -> 128 bit transition, which is
> still as far away now as it was three decades ago :-)
> 
> Aug 1995:
> 
>   "I think I have good reason to believe that 128-bit-integer
>    machines are 25 years away, i.e., longer than the existence of
> C..."
>         - John Mashey
> 
>   "|> nightmares.  Thus, "long long" is attractive *now*, but will
> cause |> problems
>    |> with 128-bit architectures.  32-bit machines started to arrive
> around 1978 |> and 64-bit machines around 1991 (my dates are
> approximate).  128-bit |> machines will become available around
> 2004."  
>         - Frank Farance

Even if Moore's law was still in effect, the time distance between 64
and 128 is still twice longer than between 32 nad 64.
Besides, 32->64 was unusually quick. 4 times smaller 24->32 transition
took about the same time.
Of course, in reality Moore's low is not working for quite some time.

Or, may be, they were thinking about bitness not in terms of # bits in
directly accessible virtual address space?