Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!ucbopal.CC!mwm From: mwm@UCBOPAL.CC (Mike (I'll be mellow when I'm dead) Meyer) Newsgroups: net.lang.c Subject: Re: Abstraction Message-ID: <8510040630.AA28220@ucbopal.Berkeley.Edu> Date: Fri, 4-Oct-85 02:30:26 EDT Article-I.D.: ucbopal.8510040630.AA28220 Posted: Fri Oct 4 02:30:26 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 5-Oct-85 03:08:20 EDT References: <199@rtp47.UUCP> Sender: daemon@ucbvax.ARPA Organization: Missionaria Phonibalonica Lines: 17 In article <199@rtp47.UUCP> Wayne Throop (throopw@rtp47) writes: >Thus, "bit16", "bit32", and the like are good ideas, but beware. These >names should *only* be used where physical layout is the major concern >(that is, almost nowhere). There is one other place. If you know that some variable will always fit in some size (i.e., you could make it a subrange type in Pascal), then declaring it to be of type int (or uint, if it's unsigned) allows the compiler to choose the smallest type it will fit in. On the other hand, if you're worried about speed, you should declare it as an int if it's small. I even have a file of typedefs that works for VAX-like machines that declares int and uint correctly.