Author: Matt Taylor
Date: 09:44:50 01/09/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 08, 2003 at 16:06:38, Dieter Buerssner wrote: >On January 08, 2003 at 11:31:36, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote: >Much snipped. > >>short --> not smaller than char >[...] >>I do not remember now whether a short can be smaller than 16 bits. > >No, it can't. My emphasis was on the fact, that the types were well defined, >while Matt said, that the sizes were not. Not really a contradiction, also >depends, on what is meant by "well defined". > >Regards, >Dieter My recollections of old K&R C are similar to Miguel's. My definition of "well-defined" is "unambiguous without regard to machine." While short, int, and long are unambiguous in the context of a -specific- machine, they are very ambiguous in general. Anyway, C99 is 4 years after Java was introduced by Sun. The point I've made stands here: Java had a 64-bit type before C standardized on it. It is more likely then for people to make use of this in Java, and that spearheads optimization of code generated for 64-bit types on Intel. Obviously this is different for other platforms. As a matter of personal opinion, I find the idea of a "long long" silly. I would rather use an "int64" when I want a 64-bit type and a plain "int" when I want a type whose size is irrelevant (e.g. index to an array). In the spirit of K&R, int should be 64-bits on a 64-bit platform. It is disappointing that this is not always the case. -Matt
This page took 0.02 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.