Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!seismo!nbires!vianet!devine
From: devine@vianet.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Standard int sizes
Message-ID: <174@vianet.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 15-Apr-87 19:31:51 EST
Article-I.D.: vianet.174
Posted: Wed Apr 15 19:31:51 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 17-Apr-87 23:51:27 EST
References: <6759@brl-adm.ARPA> <230@ems.UUCP> <170@vianet.UUCP> <3286@pogo.TEK.COM>
Distribution: na
Organization: Western Digital, Boulder Tech Ctr
Lines: 15
Keywords: int, short
Summary: not just 'short'

In article <5744@brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>) 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.

  That may work (though others have replied that 'short' is not even
guarenteed to be 16 bits) if I want "at least 16 bits".  I suggested the
use of "int16" for those cases where a programmer wants exactly 16 bits.

  A similar situation exists for 32 bits.  Someone could easily create
an 'int32' type by selecting either an int or a long if they wanted a
type that they could use portably across different compile environments.

  [Of course, this attempt at portability won't work if a machine's
architecture is incapable of supplying 16- and 32-bit entities.]