Author: Matt Taylor
Date: 17:19:52 01/11/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 11, 2003 at 18:54:00, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote: >On January 11, 2003 at 17:29:28, Heiner Marxen wrote: > >>On January 10, 2003 at 21:34:38, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On January 10, 2003 at 18:14:09, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote: >>[...] >>>>If you want portable code, use long long for both. If it is a very important >>>>variable use typedef. >> >>That often is not a good solution. Memory is not exactly for free, >>especially not so in the caches. >>Also (long long) is not exactly portable, either. > >I think that you mean "using long long" is not a good solution, rather than >using typedefs. Memory is not free, I agree, that is whay I say that for an >important variable (that could be later an arrayf of them) it is better to use a >typedef. For local variables I do not think that it will really matters in most >of the cases. > >If it is really needed an int16_t, int32_t, int64_t that could be defined as a >typedef. That should require a minimum maintance. My point is that it is not a >big deal that the language provide that when I could do it by myself. It is a big deal when you port code that relies on bitfields and other size-specific behaviors. Heiner's solution is nice, but I see no reason why this shouldn't be addressed in the C spec. Furthermore it only works in some cases. It does not work when you need a type of specific length that is not supported natively by the architecture. It still does not support 128-bit integers on x86 or Alpha. -Matt
This page took 0 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.