Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: size of int & the 68K (was: standardizing integral type sizes)
Message-ID: <7981@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 29-Apr-87 16:46:02 EDT
Article-I.D.: utzoo.7981
Posted: Wed Apr 29 16:46:02 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 29-Apr-87 16:46:02 EDT
References: <101@umich.UUCP> <791@xanth.UUCP>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 14

> >It loses us the current semantics of "int", which are "the form of integer
> >that is most efficient on the machine in question".  ...
> 
> Henry, can you provide a paragraph number in dpANS that says that? Or
> a page/paragraph number from K&R. I agree that that's what it _should_
> be, but haven't been able to find anything to prove it.

Without having searched them carefully, I would say that there probably
isn't anything that spells it out precisely.  There are all those comments
about ints being the "most natural" size, and certainly "most efficient"
is what most people take that to mean (modulo the problems on the 68000).
-- 
"If you want PL/I, you know       Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
where to find it." -- DMR         {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry