mustyoshi
|
  |
 |
| Joined: 27 Dec 2007 |
| Total Posts: 41651 |
|
|
| 06 Sep 2012 10:25 AM |
Since they don't use 64bit integers.
~Monica |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 06 Sep 2012 10:26 AM |
| or they just use 32 bit integers for extendability |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
mustyoshi
|
  |
 |
| Joined: 27 Dec 2007 |
| Total Posts: 41651 |
|
|
| 06 Sep 2012 10:29 AM |
How would using 32bit instead of 64bit extend anything?
~Monica |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
noliCAIKS
|
  |
| Joined: 08 Mar 2010 |
| Total Posts: 917 |
|
|
| 06 Sep 2012 10:44 AM |
print(0xffffffff == 0x100000000) > true
Whut? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Seranok
|
  |
| Joined: 12 Dec 2009 |
| Total Posts: 11083 |
|
|
| 06 Sep 2012 10:46 AM |
| I don't think there's any correlation between the sizes of ints that ASP.NET uses and whether or not the servers are running 32-bit or 64-bit. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
sncplay42
|
  |
| Joined: 27 Nov 2008 |
| Total Posts: 11891 |
|
|
| 06 Sep 2012 10:58 AM |
^
System.Object.GetHashCode() always returns System.Int32.
And cuz it's ASP.NET, that's almost certainly what they're using |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 06 Sep 2012 10:59 AM |
"How would using 32bit instead of 64bit extend anything?"
..
extendability ~= extending |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Seranok
|
  |
| Joined: 12 Dec 2009 |
| Total Posts: 11083 |
|
|
| 06 Sep 2012 11:17 AM |
| I think he means using longs would result in being able to store more numbers. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
pighead10
|
  |
| Joined: 03 May 2009 |
| Total Posts: 10341 |
|
|
| 06 Sep 2012 12:00 PM |
| They're using asp.NET, it's nothing to do with hardware! |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
mustyoshi
|
  |
 |
| Joined: 27 Dec 2007 |
| Total Posts: 41651 |
|
|
| 06 Sep 2012 01:09 PM |
@pig If it was compiled for 64bit, why doesn't it use 64bit?
~Monica |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Tarabukka
|
  |
| Joined: 18 Jan 2011 |
| Total Posts: 394 |
|
|
| 06 Sep 2012 01:13 PM |
| because the CLR is stoopid |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
noliCAIKS
|
  |
| Joined: 08 Mar 2010 |
| Total Posts: 917 |
|
| |
|
mustyoshi
|
  |
 |
| Joined: 27 Dec 2007 |
| Total Posts: 41651 |
|
|
| 06 Sep 2012 01:15 PM |
>portability If you control your hardware, why compile for the lowest common denominator that isn't even your hardware?
~Monica |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
noliCAIKS
|
  |
| Joined: 08 Mar 2010 |
| Total Posts: 917 |
|
|
| 06 Sep 2012 01:24 PM |
| So that hardware that does not support your fancy high numbers can use it too without having to compute eight times as much perhaps? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
mustyoshi
|
  |
 |
| Joined: 27 Dec 2007 |
| Total Posts: 41651 |
|
|
| 06 Sep 2012 01:39 PM |
It's the server software we're talking about, why would they run it on inferior hardware?
~Monica |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 06 Sep 2012 01:41 PM |
"If it was compiled for 64bit, why doesn't it use 64bit?"
On .NET, ints are 32 bits (really, they are fancily typedef'd System.Int32s). This doesn't mean it can't change, it just wont based on your architecture. If you want 64 bit ints, use a long or System.Int64 (same as int, long is a fancily typedef'd System.Int64)
C and C++ exhibit the same behavior, but unlike .NET where it is dependent on the runtime, C and C++, the size of int is decided by the compiler. I know of some old old compilers that compile int to 16 bits, but any compiler that is worth using nowadays compiles int to 32 bits on any architecture that is worth using (x86, x86_64, ARM, and PowerPC).
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|