Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!hp4nl!targon!gert
From: gert@targon.UUCP (Gert Kanis)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: A real operating system ?
Summary: What problem with 16 bit int's ?
Keywords: future 1.5
Message-ID: <1080@targon.UUCP>
Date: 16 Mar 90 13:29:36 GMT
References: <1383@Terra.cc.brunel.ac.uk>
Reply-To: gert@targon.UUCP (Gert Kanis)
Followup-To: comp.os.minix
Organization: Nixdorf Computer BV.,SWP, P.O.Box 29,Vianen, The Netherlands
Lines: 29

In article eesrajm@cc.brunel.ac.uk (Andrew J Michael) writes:
>I have tried
>both MINIX-PC and MINIX-ST, and I regard the ST as superior because porting
>public-domain UNIX programs to it is pretty simple. No restrictions on length
>of variables or memory usage. The only real problem is 16-bit ints, but gcc
>removes this restriction.              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Andy Michael

 Hi there,
I for one don't see how 16 bit ints could be a REAL problem.....
As you undoubtly know: short = at least 16 bit
		       int   = at least 16 bit
		       long  = at least 32 bit

The real length of an int depends on the architecture (the compiler should
know about this :-/). Nevertheless NO portable code should rely on ints
being longer than 16 bit (use longs instead).

What's the problem?

Gert Kanis.
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
| No more jokes they   |  Gert Kanis, ASW CBS SWP                 |
| take to much space.  |  Nixdorf Computer BV, Postbus 29         |
|----------------------|  4130 EA Vianen, Netherlands.            |
| I do not represent   |  E-mail :    ... nluug.nl!targon!gert    |
| anyone elses opinion.|  or {..uunet!mcsun!}hp4nl!targon!gert    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+