Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!ucbopal.CC!mwm
From: mwm@UCBOPAL.CC (Mike (I'll be mellow when I'm dead) Meyer)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: Abstraction
Message-ID: <8510040630.AA28220@ucbopal.Berkeley.Edu>
Date: Fri, 4-Oct-85 02:30:26 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbopal.8510040630.AA28220
Posted: Fri Oct 4 02:30:26 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 5-Oct-85 03:08:20 EDT
References: <199@rtp47.UUCP>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.ARPA
Organization: Missionaria Phonibalonica
Lines: 17
In article <199@rtp47.UUCP> Wayne Throop (throopw@rtp47) writes:
>Thus, "bit16", "bit32", and the like are good ideas, but beware. These
>names should *only* be used where physical layout is the major concern
>(that is, almost nowhere).
There is one other place. If you know that some variable will always fit in
some size (i.e., you could make it a subrange type in Pascal), then
declaring it to be of type int (or uint, if it's unsigned) allows the
compiler to choose the smallest type it will fit in.
On the other hand, if you're worried about speed, you should declare it as
an int if it's small.
I even have a file of typedefs that works for VAX-like machines that declares
int and uint correctly.