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: <175@vianet.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 16-Apr-87 19:36:55 EST
Article-I.D.: vianet.175
Posted: Thu Apr 16 19:36:55 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 18-Apr-87 03:28:14 EST
References: <6759@brl-adm.ARPA> <230@ems.UUCP> <170@vianet.UUCP> <835@xanth.UUCP>
Organization: Western Digital, Boulder Tech Ctr
Lines: 26
Keywords: int, short

In article <835@xanth.UUCP>, kyle@xanth.UUCP (kyle jones) writes:
> standard [...] should demand that each type be AT LEAST a certain size
> 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.

  Since I kicked in the 'int16' posting, let's see if I can bring this
to a close.

  I agree that the supplied types should at the minimum give a programmer
some idea of the possible range it may hold.  The K&R rule of short <= int
<= long leaves too much up to the compiler writers (even though tradition
restrains wild interpretation).  So, yes, there should be consistent rules
for the size of types -- both minimums and maximums.

  As for the 'int16' suggestion: there are cases where one needs to have
exactly defined sizes.  A portable program for file manipulation or network
exchanges is much easier to write if a type is the same across machines.
(This only leaves the *small* problems of structure packing and alignment,
and byte-swapping....)

  My favorite for portably providing data type sizes is Pascal's ranges.
But, this is 'comp.lang.c'.

Bob Devine