Author: Dieter Buerssner
Date: 08:15:27 01/08/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 07, 2003 at 20:16:05, Matt Taylor wrote: >If you read the C standard carefully, the size of short, int, and long were not >defined when Kernighan and Ritchie worked on it. The int datatype is meant to be >the optimal machine datatype, not necessarily 32-bits or whatever. Unfortunately, my copy of K+R was stolen long time ago from my desk, so I cannot check it anymore. I believe to remember, that the minimum ranges for the integer type were already defined there. This has not changed until today. The ISO C99 Standard still defines the integer types by the minimum ranges (and some more restrictions for unsigned types). In C99 there is also a type, that has (practically speaking) at least 64 bits ([unsigned] long long). When I first met the Alpha (I think almost 10 years ago), the DEC C compiler already supported 64 bit longs (one could switch between 64 bit and 32 bit longs by a compiler switch, similar for pointers - at least IIRC). At that time Gcc already had the long long type. Regards, Dieter
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.