Path: utzoo!dptcdc!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ficc!peter
From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Specifying int size in C
Message-ID: <3899@ficc.uu.net>
Date: 18 Apr 89 11:10:34 GMT
References: <1032@myrias.UUCP> <12289@reed.UUCP> <16568@winchester.mips.COM> <10377@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU>
Organization: Xenix Support
Lines: 22

In article <10377@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU>, cquenel@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (36 more school days) writes:
> In 9424 peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) sez:
> >	int:32	x, y;
> >	int:36	z;	/* Unisys 1100 compatibility :-> */
> >	int	a:8, b:9, c:6;

> 	int32_t x,y;
> 	int16_t c;

Oh yes, I know, I know. I'm involved in setting up a company-wide standard
for 'C' programming, and we're doing something like this. But the semantics
are not quite as good as int:n would be.

For example, 1+(unsigned int:3)7 should be 0. Defining specific types does
not give you this ability. It'd also be a boon for people porting code to
weird machines... sometimes you really need an int with a power-of-2 size,
and it's a pain to emulate that by hand on a 36-bit machine.
-- 
Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation.

Business: uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter, peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180.
Personal: ...!texbell!sugar!peter, peter@sugar.hackercorp.com.