Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbatt!cbosgd!ihnp4!ihlpa!droch
From: droch@ihlpa.UUCP (Kraft)
Newsgroups: net.micro.amiga
Subject: Re: Re: Orphaned Response
Message-ID: <1509@ihlpa.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 9-Jul-86 19:05:13 EDT
Article-I.D.: ihlpa.1509
Posted: Wed Jul  9 19:05:13 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 11-Jul-86 05:41:47 EDT
References: <8607040632.AA22409@pavepaws> <430@oscvax.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 33

> In article <8607040632.AA22409@pavepaws> dillon@PAVEPAWS.BERKELEY.EDU.UUCP writes:
> >	I Believe K & R define shorts and longs to be not less than 16 and
> >32 bits respectively.
> >			-Matt
> 
> I don't have my K&R with me right now to check but I beleive that the
> above is incorrect.  I think it's
> 
> 	int >= 16 bits
> 
> 	# of bits in a short <= # of bits in an int
> 	# of bits in a long  >= # of bits in an int
> 
> Like I said, I'm not sure about this.  This should probably be in net.lang.c
> 
> 	-Rico

page 34 of The C Programming Language (Kernighan & Ritchie but of
course) states:

	The intent is that short and long should provide
	different lengths of integers where *practical*;
	int will normally reflect the most ``natural''
	size for a particular machine.  As you can see,
	each compiler is free to interpret short and long
	as appropriate for its own hardware.  About all you
	should count on is that short is no longer than long.

					Ciao guys,
					David Roch
					AT&T Bell Labs

You can't get there from here - REM