Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!rutgers!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!decvax!tektronix!orca!pogo!rickc From: rickc@pogo.UUCP Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Standard int sizes Message-ID: <3286@pogo.TEK.COM> Date: Tue, 14-Apr-87 11:04:13 EST Article-I.D.: pogo.3286 Posted: Tue Apr 14 11:04:13 1987 Date-Received: Thu, 16-Apr-87 01:13:54 EST References: <6759@brl-adm.ARPA> <230@ems.UUCP> <170@vianet.UUCP> <5744@brl-smoke.ARPA> Reply-To: rickc@pogo.UUCP (Rick Clements) Distribution: na Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR. Lines: 13 Keywords: int, short Summary: short may not be 16 bits In article <5744@brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) ) writes: >If you simply need at least 16 bits in a signed integer data type, >use "short". That way whoever reads the code doesn't have to learn >what your invention "int16" means. Maybe short should be at least 16 bits. However, I have used compilers with 8 bit shorts. >It is worth noting that exact size of a data type is seldom >important, so long as it is "big enough". I agree. The only time I need exactly 8, 16 or 32 bits is when I am describing hardware. And, that code will never be portable.