Size of basic types

[Robert Dewar]

Paul Schlie wrote:

> Thanks, I didn't appreciate that there was a dependency between the size of
> a pointer and the size of a long; I had mistakenly presumed that as long as
> there was a supported int datatype which was at least as large as a pointer
> (as in the above example long long == pointer size) GCC's infrastructure
> would support it.

Zack did not say that GCC could not support it, just that it would be
essentially a new port and a huge amount of work, and that it *might*
be the case that breaking the pointer/long assumption would cause
further difficulties.

That seems a fair analysis to me ...