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.