Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83 v7 ucbtopaz-1.8; site ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!ucbvax!ucbtopaz!mwm From: mwm@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA Newsgroups: net.lang.c Subject: Re: integer sizes Message-ID: <786@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA> Date: Mon, 4-Mar-85 07:48:29 EST Article-I.D.: ucbtopaz.786 Posted: Mon Mar 4 07:48:29 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 7-Mar-85 04:12:46 EST References: <8871@brl-tgr.ARPA> Reply-To: mwm@ucbtopaz.UUCP (Praiser of Bob) Organization: Missionaria Phonibalonica Lines: 45 Summary: In article <8871@brl-tgr.ARPA> gwyn@Brl-Vld.ARPA (VLD/VMB) writes: >ANSI C will guarantee minimum sizes for integer types. >A short or an int will have 16 bits minimum and a long >will have 32 bits minimum. For other sizes, round up. >For more than 32 bits, find another way. You mean, if I've got a program that needs values around 5 billion, and a compiler/machine that has 60 bit longs, I shouldn't use C???? Likewise, if I've got a machine that has 18 bit shorts and (expensive!) 36 bit longs, and I need values around 100,000, I should use the longs? Nuts to that. I'll use "uint60" and "int17", and give you a copy of the include file that defines them. If you refuse to fix the include file, the code will die. But that's your problem, not mine.