Author: Miguel A. Ballicora
Date: 12:58:29 01/10/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 10, 2003 at 15:06:58, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On January 10, 2003 at 12:37:20, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote: > >>On January 10, 2003 at 11:10:07, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On January 10, 2003 at 05:12:04, David Rasmussen wrote: >>> >>>>On January 09, 2003 at 17:36:11, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>I think the entire concept of "short", "int" and "long" are badly flawed. It >>>>>would >>>>>have been so much more logical and clean to simply go with int16, int32 and >>>>>int64. >>>>> >>>>>I don't personally like "long long" as it is a syntactical oddity in light of >>>>>char, short, int >>>>>and float/double. >>>> >>>>There is a reasonable explanation for this at least. The idea is that "int" >>>>should be whatever is the most natural entity of integer calculalation on a >>>>machine. In many cases, you don't care how many bits a type can store. The lower >>>>limits given by the standards is enough. You just want to know that by writing >>>>"int" you get something that on every platform is supposed to be simple, fast, >>>>signed (no weird problems with subtraction etc.), >>> >>>But _not_ for "real codes". Do I _really_ want to use int, when it _might_ be a >>>16 bit value that won't hold the counter I need? >>> >>>No. >> >>You can use long, as you say below, if you really need bigger values than the >>ones provided by 16 bits. I do not think this is a big deal. >> >>Miguel > > >That's the point. On a Cray, I want to use "int" and get 32 bits, vs using long >and getting Just use int :-) If you have int16, int32, int64, you never know which one is more suitable for another processor. Suppose that int16 is enough and you use it, maybe int32 was faster! Of course you have to make a decision if you want portable code or faster code. You can always use a typedef for a particular variable and have the best compromise in C. You cannot have 100% portable and optimal code in any scheme, even in the one you suggest. Miguel >64. I _know_ the precision I need, I'd prefer to be able to specify it >_precisely_ rather than >letting the compiler assume something.
This page took 0.01 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.