mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA (der Mouse) writes:
>> Uhm... Since when have ints been guaranteed to be larger then 16
>> bits?

>Since we started using gcc.  Since we have a kernel that even on a CISC
>machine is bigger than a 16-bit address space can encompass.

I don't know what a larger-then-16-bit address space has to do with
the size of an int.  There are lots of machines with 16 bit ints and
an address space that is larger then 16 bits.

>When was the last time you saw Berkeley
>mail running on a system with less-than-32-bit ints?

"As we speek."

1% ls -l /usr/bin/mailx
-rwx--x--x   1 bin      bin        67527 Apr 13  1987 /usr/bin/mailx
2% file /usr/bin/mailx
/usr/bin/mailx: 8086 separate executable

Also, it seems to me that 2.11BSD is doing just fine on PDP-11s,
judging from the traffic in it's newsgroup.

In my book, you haven't made a convincing argument to deliberately
create unportable code.
-- 
Christoph Badura	bad@flatlin.ka.sub.org

You don't need to quote my .signature.  Everyone has seen it by now.
Besides, it doesn't add anything to the current thread.