Author: Dieter Buerssner
Date: 14:08:18 12/09/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 09, 2002 at 16:52:34, Robert Hyatt wrote: >Yep. however, even the ANSI C committe could not agree on what to do with >things >from int, short, long and how to specify 64 bit ints... The ISO C standard defines those types IMHO in a very sensable way, by giving minimum allowed ranges for a conforming compiler. The C99 Standard defines [unsigned] long long basically as a type that has at least 64 bits. Any further specification (especially of the shorter types) would probably make it impossible to implement it efficiently on some architectures (for example for some embedded processors, which prefer int to be 16 bit and will produce faster code with this. Others use 32 bits even for char - they can't adress unaligned data. Generating code with masks etc. could make the code very inefficient). For most programming tasks, I see not much of a problem with the Standard definition of the types. If they would define the exact range of types, should they stop there? One could go on and ask to define an endianess. Regards, Dieter
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.