32-bit

I have found similar questions on this page, but I can't seem to figure out how to interpret the answers or figure out if they are truly duplicates. Here are the possible duplicates I've found, with comments: SetWindowsHookEx returns 0 when compiling for the .NET 4.0 framework in 32bit machines It doesn't seem to return 0 on mine, but I noticed that the handle reported when it crashes (.NET 4.0 on 32-bit) is way different from the handle reported when it runs (.NET 3.5 on 32-bit), like crash handle = 523727, and working handle = 172738378. Calling SetWindowsHookEx inside VS2008 debugger always

Possibly better suited for "Rack Overflow", but from a developer's point of view, what are the advantages and disadvantages of running IIS (serving both legacy classic ASP and .NET) as a 32bit process instead of a 64bit process on a 64bit windows host? The main advantage of 32/64 (iis/server) over 32/32 seems to be the ability to go up to 4gb in memory per IIS process. The advantages I expect of 32/64 over 64/64 appear to be that it's easier to access legacy 32-bit in-process DLLs (of which we still have one from a partner vendor we can't move away from immediately) and perhaps a smaller

When I try to compile a copy of my project on my local machine, I get an error stating that it 's skipping over incompatible libraries. This isn't the case when I'm messing around with the live version hosted on the server at work [it makes perfectly there]. Various other sites have lead me to believe that this might be an environment issue, as I'm developing on a 64-bit distro of Ubuntu and I assume the server version is running on 32-bit. Nevertheless, after setting my environment variables to: CFLAGS+=" -m32" CXXFLAGS+=" -m32" I still receive the same compile error of: /usr/bin/ld: skipping

When running a PowerShell script on a x64-bit OS platform, how can you determine in the script what version of PowerShell (32-bit or 64-bit) the script is running on? Background Both 32-bit and 64-bit versions of PowerShell are installed by default on a 64-bit platform such as Windows Server 2008. This can lead to difficulties when a PowerShell script is ran that must target a specific architecture (i.e. using 64-bit for a script for SharePoint 2010, in order to consume the 64-bit libraries). Related question: What is the best way to program against powershell's x64 vs. x86 variability? This

On a 32-bit CPU, an integer is 4 bytes and a short integer is 2 bytes. If I am writing a C/C++ application that uses many numeric values that will always fit within the provided range of a short integer, is it more efficient to use 4 byte integers or 2 byte integers? I have heard it suggested that 4 byte integers are more efficient as this fits the bandwidth of the bus from memory to the CPU. However, if I am adding together two short integers, would the CPU package both values in a single pass in parallel (thus spanning the 4 byte bandwidth of the bus)? Yes, you should definitely use a 32 bit

In my C# source code I may have declared integers as: int i = 5; or Int32 i = 5; In the currently prevalent 32-bit world they are equivalent. However, as we move into a 64-bit world, am I correct in saying that the following will become the same? int i = 5; Int64 i = 5; No. The C# specification rigidly defines that int is an alias for System.Int32 with exactly 32 bits. Changing this would be a major breaking change. The int keyword in C# is defined as an alias for the System.Int32 type and this is (judging by the name) meant to be a 32-bit integer. To the specification: CLI specification