Re: setsockopt() compat issue

[christos%astron.com@localhost (Christos Zoulas)]

In article <20081019004609.GA10211%netbsd.org@localhost>,
David Holland  <dholland-tech%netbsd.org@localhost> wrote:
>On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 05:53:22PM -0400, Greg A. Woods; Planix, Inc. wrote:
>> I think most of those arguments given in that paper are almost as 
>> completely bogus, and are clearly ignorant of the various elephants in 
>> their room, as the (sadly similar) arguments which created the massive and 
>> unnecessary bogosity which came out of the Large File Summit.
>>
>> I think in reality ILP64, or perhaps S32ILP64, has clearly been shown to 
>> work just as well for at least some relevant hardware architectures.
>>
>> A better argument as to why NetBSD uses I32LP64 on those architectures 
>> where ILP64 might make more sense would be to say that it was simply easier 
>> to follow the herd than to try to ride against them all no matter how bogus 
>> were the arguments used by the herd to choose their direction.
>
>I don't understand the point of your argument. What *purpose* is
>served by making "int" 64 bits wide? What problem are you trying to
>solve?

The only thing that having int 64 bits solves is programs that assume
sizeof(int) == sizeof(long) keep working, while making life more difficult
in general because you are not going to have a primitive type for 16 or
32 bit numbers.

christos