If I recall correctly, UNIX vendors in the late 90s were debating a fair bit internally and amongst each other whether to use LP64 or ILP64 or LLP64 (where long

If I recall correctly, UNIX vendors in the late 90s were debating a fair bit internally and amongst each other whether to use LP64 or ILP64 or LLP64 (where long longs and pointers were 64bit). ooh, found a link to a UNIX Open Group white paper on that discussion and reasoning why LP64 should be/was chosen: https://unix.org/version2/whatsnew/lp64_wp.html https://unix.org/version2/whatsnew/lp64_wp.html And per Raymond Chen, why Windows picked LLP64: https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20050131-00/?p=36563 https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20050131-00/?p=36... and https://web.archive.org/web/20060618233104/http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/win64/win64/abstract_data_models.asp https://web.archive.org/web/20060618233104/http://msdn.micro... For some history of why ILP32 was picked for 1970s 16 to 32 bit transition of C + Unix System V (Windows 3.1, Mac OS were LP32) see John Mashey's 2006 ACM piece, partcularly the section "Early Days" sechttps://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1165766 https://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1165766 No peanut gallery comments from OS/400 guys about 128-bit pointers/object handles/single store address space in the mid-1990s please! That's not the same thing and you know it! (j/k. i'll stop now)