Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!orchid!clyde!rutgers!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!manis
From: manis@ubc-cs.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: standardizing integral type sizes
Message-ID: <1003@ubc-cs.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 14-Apr-87 10:10:56 EST
Article-I.D.: ubc-cs.1003
Posted: Tue Apr 14 10:10:56 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 18-Apr-87 00:19:29 EST
References: <101@umich.UUCP> <791@xanth.UUCP> <1987Apr9.155110.28398@sq.uucp> <3162@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>
Reply-To: manis@ubc-cs.UUCP (Vincent Manis)
Organization: UBC Department of Computer Science
Lines: 30

In article <3162@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> mwm@eris.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (My watch
has windows) Meyer) writes:

>Unfortunately, these are only specified by implication (so far as I
>can tell). If someone can provide a paragraph number, where all of
>this is specified (or anywhere where "int operations are at least..."
>is specified), I'd appreciate it.
This is a good place for an appendix which is not part of the standard,
much like the "common extensions" appendix.

>Something that did what you said. For instance, consider a
>hypothetical Queer Machine for C (QM/C), which has 18 bit words (word
>addressed), and instructions for dealing with double words. The
>obvious implementation has int = short = 18 bits, and long = 36 bits.
If the QM/C uses one's complement, you have the PDP-9. I never heard of
a PDP-9 C compiler...

This isn't a standardisation issue, but if I wrote a C compiler for a
machine with short words, you would have a pragma which set the precision of
'int'. 

-----
Vincent Manis                {seismo,uw-beaver}!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!manis
Dept. of Computer Science    manis@cs.ubc.cdn
Univ. of British Columbia    manis%ubc.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa  
Vancouver, B.C. V6T 1W5      manis@ubc.csnet
(604) 228-6770 or 228-3061

"Long live the ideals of Marxism-Lennonism! May the thoughts of Groucho
 and John guide us in word, thought, and deed!"