|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
William Pence writes:
- some languages only support signed 64-bit integers, and do not natively support unsigned 64-bit integers (e.g., Fortran and Java, I think). In these systems integer values greater than 2**63 would appear as negative values. Software applications that must support the full range of unsigned 64-bit integers could probably be written to test for any negative values, and then reinterpret the value as the correct unsigned value. In a sense that's not a new problem, since we already have that situation for BITPIX=16 and 32. For Fortran at least, not sure about Java. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed 2005/05/04 19:46:19 +0200, Francois Ochsenbein wrote in a message to: I think it's not the role of the FITS standard to specify what to do on a computer which has not the native 64-bit implementation. I agree in principle but as a practical matter we don't want to create a monster, e.g. it would have been possible to define BITPIX=-64 as VAX G-floating. Mark Calabretta ATNF |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FITS long integer support (was [fitsbits] ADASS FITS BoF onSunday) | Eric Greisen | FITS | 10 | October 26th 04 08:14 AM |
FITS long integer support (was [fitsbits] ADASS FITS BoFon Sunday) | William Pence | FITS | 6 | October 22nd 04 08:23 PM |
[fitsbits] FITS long integer support | Steve Allen | FITS | 0 | October 21st 04 06:22 PM |
Dobsonian question | bkiff | Amateur Astronomy | 37 | November 25th 03 10:39 PM |
[fitsbits] BLANK keyword misinterpretation | Steve Allen | FITS | 4 | November 21st 03 04:42 PM |