This is the mail archive of the fortran@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GNU Fortran project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: types for the job - a question of style

From: Janne Blomqvist <jblomqvi at cc dot hut dot fi>
To: Paul Brook <paul at codesourcery dot com>
Cc: fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org, THOMAS Paul Richard <prthomas at drfccad dot cea dot fr>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 23:33:58 +0300
Subject: Re: types for the job - a question of style
References: <756DFD3DE8F1D411A59A00306E06E84702C42630@drfccad.cad.cea.fr> <200504121349.27118.paul@codesourcery.com>

On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 01:49:25PM +0100, Paul Brook wrote:
> Any gains from reduction in memory are probably outweighed by the increased 
> runtime cost.  On may targets using smaller types can incur additional 
> overhead due to additional sign/zero extensions.
> I don't think there is anywhere in the library that uses significant 
> quantities of memory.  IMO anywhere dealing with "small" integers should be 
> using "int".

Slightly OT: What about 64-bit targets? Don't these have the same
problem extending 32-bit types to 64-bit? If that is true, wouldn't
that be reason to use long, which IIRC is 32 bits on most
architectures and 64 bits on most 64-bit architectures (MS being the
major exception)?

-- 
Janne Blomqvist

References:
- types for the job - a question of style
  - From: THOMAS Paul Richard
- Re: types for the job - a question of style
  - From: Paul Brook

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]