From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 109d8a,232e89dd4cc3c154
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Thread: 1014db,232e89dd4cc3c154
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Thread: 1094ba,232e89dd4cc3c154
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Thread: 101deb,dea70f96af442ea2
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Thread: 103376,232e89dd4cc3c154
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: 
 gid9ef9b79ae9,gid4516fb5702,gid8d3408f8c3,gidbda4de328f,gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news1.google.com!npeer01.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!nx01.iad01.newshosting.com!209.197.12.246.MISMATCH!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!newspump.sol.net!posts.news.megabitz.net!nnrp2-asbnva.megabitz.net!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.math,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.pl1,comp.lang.ada
From: Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net>
Subject: Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG.
References: <4dae2a4b$0$55577$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net>
 <4db90113$0$77724$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net>
 <ipbjqf$q4k$1@dont-email.me> <ipd5i2011p@news6.newsguy.com>
 <ipd83f$5at$1@dont-email.me> <lnsjt1w0oc.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.9p1 (Darwin)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <slrnirmga8.2n00.usenet-nospam@guild.seebs.net>
Date: 29 Apr 2011 22:45:28 GMT
Organization: Megabitz - More USENET, Faster USENET
NNTP-Posting-Date: 29 Apr 2011 22:45:28 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 47e745ce.news.megabitz.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=2e<N>BSYW3;i[Emo<c==S:><6FU_Q:4m2^W\Y;gN2lO=ijUVokL_HL:Za3MD=dXY[37d@DE\31QY52V739;<gZ50?i9TYFJHfQ:B]nJco95aO8]a;<nW_88=8
X-Complaints-To: abuse@megabitz.net
Xref: g2news2.google.com sci.math:234322 comp.lang.c:126666
 comp.lang.fortran:41356 comp.lang.pl1:2428 comp.lang.ada:20064
Date: 2011-04-29T22:45:28+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 2011-04-29, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote:
> Certainly CHAR_BIT *could* be 64 (or even more), but I've never heard
> of a 64-bit system with CHAR_BIT==64.  Such an implementation would
> have trouble dealing with octet-oriented data from other systems.

I've heard of at least one system where sizeof(int64_t) was 1, but I'm not
sure what range of values was allowed in chars.  Presumably unsigned char
was 0..2^64-1.

It was also a LONG time ago, and may not have been standard C.

-s
-- 
Copyright 2011, all wrongs reversed.  Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam@seebs.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
I am not speaking for my employer, although they do rent some of my opinions.