Timeline for Why might it be difficult to make a 64 bit version of a program?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 24, 2015 at 13:03 | audit | First posts | |||
| Jan 24, 2015 at 13:03 | |||||
| Jan 4, 2015 at 22:00 | history | protected | gnat | ||
| Jan 4, 2015 at 5:32 | comment | added | Jeff Hammond | I am surprised that no one has noted the fact that intptr_t is optional (cplusplus.com/reference/cstdint), which makes some ILP-independent workarounds non-portable. | |
| Jan 4, 2015 at 2:31 | vote | accept | calben | ||
| Jan 3, 2015 at 21:03 | comment | added | user80551 | @NoBugs Not that unity en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unity_%28game_engine%29 | |
| Jan 3, 2015 at 20:24 | comment | added | NoBugs | Unity is available in 64-bit: packages.ubuntu.com/precise/unity | |
| Jan 3, 2015 at 19:47 | comment | added | MSalters |
Why would that be a reasonable assumption? I'd expect to have a decent operator* for int, but pointers don't need that. Also, most Linux and Unix environments have int at 32 bits too.
|
|
| Jan 3, 2015 at 18:17 | comment | added | Joshua | Which is in fact a perfectly reasonable assumption on flat architectures. Windows got it wrong deliberately to avoid breaking their own screw-ups. | |
| Jan 3, 2015 at 13:11 | comment | added | Kshitij | They can use typedef like int32,int64 for int ,float,pointer instead of assuming their size. Which might solve a lot problem. Many of problems start from the time we start assuming. | |
| Jan 3, 2015 at 10:10 | review | Close votes | |||
| Jan 7, 2015 at 16:39 | |||||
| Jan 3, 2015 at 9:49 | comment | added | Doc Brown | The topmost reason in our environment is the dependance on some third-party components which are not available as 64 bit. Do not know if that applies to Unity, too, but I would not be too astonished if that is the case. | |
| Jan 3, 2015 at 4:34 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackProgrammer/status/551235136613003264 | ||
| Jan 3, 2015 at 2:29 | answer | added | user22815 | timeline score: 26 | |
| Jan 3, 2015 at 2:28 | answer | added | Jon Purdy | timeline score: 61 | |
| Jan 3, 2015 at 2:04 | comment | added | ratchet freak |
because stupid programmers keep assuming sizeof(int)==sizeof(void*)
|
|
| Jan 3, 2015 at 2:02 | history | asked | calben | CC BY-SA 3.0 |