Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!ima!mirror!xanth!kyle
From: kyle@xanth.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Standard int sizes
Message-ID: <835@xanth.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 15-Apr-87 22:51:25 EST
Article-I.D.: xanth.835
Posted: Wed Apr 15 22:51:25 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 18-Apr-87 00:04:45 EST
References: <6759@brl-adm.ARPA> <230@ems.UUCP> <170@vianet.UUCP> <3286@pogo.TEK.COM>
Distribution: world
Organization: odu computer science, norfolk, va
Lines: 12
Keywords: int, short
Summary: What good is having more than one int type w/o known ranges?

I agree completely that the standard cannot demand that integral types be an
EXACT size but it should demand that each integral type be AT LEAST a certain
size.  The sizes that I mentioned in my earlier article on this subject where
by no means intended to be definitive; those simply were the first numbers
that came to mind.

Using #define's like int16 to choose the right sized int type is just too
_compiler_ dependent.  Contending with machine dependencies is enough work,
without this added burden.  Setting a minimal size for each integral type
still looks best to me.

kyle@xanth.cs.odu.edu    (kyle jones @ old dominion university, norfolk, va)