Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ucbvax!ucdavis!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!seismo!brl-tgr!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-tgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn <gwyn>)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: Re: Uses of "short" ?
Message-ID: <2032@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 9-Oct-85 22:05:20 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.2032
Posted: Wed Oct  9 22:05:20 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 12-Oct-85 07:58:38 EDT
References: <486@houxh.UUCP> <3400008@ndm20> <2285@sjuvax.UUCP> <1924@brl-tgr.ARPA> <87@ucbjade.BERKELEY.EDU>
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab
Lines: 14

> typedef	long	int60 ;		/* or whatever the type is for 60 bit ints */

My point is, if more than 32 bits are needed then this code is
not going to port anyway, no matter what typedefs you use.

> Likewise, if *your* code uses int8/int16/whatever correctly, specifying the
> number of bits needed, then there file of typedefs will get them a
> reasonable type for those variables.

If you use the proper C data types, there will be no need to worry
about this at all; the code will work on all standard-conforming
implementations without any change whatsoever.  There is no need
to invent system-specific typedefs for any integer type through 32
bits, and for longer integer types typedefs are not sufficient.