Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!att!akgua!brb
From: brb@akgua.ATT.COM (Brian R. Bainter)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Absolute size of 'short'
Message-ID: <1810@akgua.ATT.COM>
Date: 2 Aug 88 17:43:26 GMT
References: <214@ISIDAPS5.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Network Systems/Bell Labs, Atlanta GA
Lines: 22

From article <214@ISIDAPS5.UUCP>, by mike@ISIDAPS5.UUCP (Mike Maloney):
> Dear C-Heavies,
> 
> Is the size of a (signed or unsigned) short integer guarenteed to
> be two bytes?  I need to manipulate and compare some unsigned ints
> modulo 65536.  It would be clean and convenient to just let the
> machine handle my wrap-around from 0 to 0xffff and verse-vica.

I had always thought that short integers were always 16 bits (due
I suppose to my use of the language on a limited number of machines
no doubt). So when I saw your question, I decided to do some checking,
and sure enough on page 34 of K&R I was once again proven mistaken.
On a Honeywell 6300 a short is 36 bits. I also noticed that everything
except bytes and doubles were 36 bits. This is probably (and someone
correct me if I'm wrong - I have all the confidence that you will) due
to the "natural" word size for the processor.


-- 
	Brian R. Bainter   KA7TXA

 AT&T Technologies Atlanta Works
 {cbosgd, gatech, ihnp4, moss, mtune, ulysses}akgua!brb