|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
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 |