Re: Computer architects leaving Intel...

On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 13:26:52 +0000, Anton Ertl wrote:

kegs@provalid.com (Kent Dickey) writes:

Bringing it back to "architecture" Like Anton Ertl has said, LP64 for
C/C++ is a mistake.  It should always have been ILP64, and this nonsense
would go away.  Any new architecture should make C ILP64 (looking at you
RISC-V, missing yet another opportunity to not make the same mistakes as
everyone else).

>
We now have had more than 30 years of catering for this mistake by
everyone involved.  Given their goals, I think that RISC-V made the
right choice for int in their ABI, even if it was the original choice
by the MIPS and Alpha people that they follow, like everyone else, was
wrong.

Until the advent of int32_t the only way to get a known 32-bit container
was int. But I agree with the notion that ILP64 should be universal now,
and if you want/need something smaller, use some other type indicator
than int.
In many cases int is slower now than long -- which violates the notion
of int from K&R days.

That being said, one option would be to introduce another ABI and API
with 64-bit int (and maybe 32-bit long short int), and programmers
could choose whether to program for the ILP API, or the int=int32_t
API.  Would the ILP API/ABI fare better then x32?  I doubt it, even
though I would support it.  This ship probably has sailed.
>
- anton