Re: [RFC][PATCH] A generic boolean

Vadim Lobanov
2006-07-20T03:04:35Z

On Wed, 19 Jul 2006, Jeff Garzik wrote:

> ricknu-0@student.ltu.se wrote:
> > Citerar Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org>:
> >> Also, you don't want to force 'unsigned char' on code, because often
> >> code prefers a machine integer to something smaller than a machine integer.
>
> > But isn't a bit smaller than a byte? Sorry, do not understand what you mean.
>
> For all processors, it is generally preferred to have integer operations
> performed on a "machine integer." A machine integer is the natural data
> type of the processor. If it's a 32-bit processor, the natural data
> type for the ALU is a 32-bit int. If it's a 64-bit processor, the
> natural data type for the ALU is a 64-bit int.

If this is the case, then wouldn't "long" be preferable to "int"?

> Jeff

-- Vadim Lobanov