Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!steinmetz!davidsen
From: davidsen@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP (William E. Davidsen Jr)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: Supercomputer Unix decisions (really type sizes)
Message-ID: <6656@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 10-Jul-87 16:10:23 EDT
Article-I.D.: steinmet.6656
Posted: Fri Jul 10 16:10:23 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 12-Jul-87 13:16:41 EDT
References: <3659@spool.WISC.EDU> <743@geac.UUCP>
Reply-To: davidsen@kbsvax.steinmetz.UUCP (William E. Davidsen Jr)
Organization: General Electric CRD, Schenectady, NY
Lines: 18

In article <1893@oliveb.UUCP> jerry@oliveb.UUCP (Jerry F Aguirre) writes:
>In article <12670@topaz.rutgers.edu> hedrick@topaz.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) writes:
>>...
>...

>The inability to precisly specify type sizes is a bad limitation of C.
>As a practacal work around some code will either define or typedef
>int16 and int32 values in an include file.  These can be used thruout
>the program and only the include file needs to be changed when porting.

When this was discussed by X3J11, I suggested a syntax like fortran,
"int*2" or "float*4" where the MINIMUM size of the variable was
specified. This was "not in the spirit of C" or something. I agree it's
ugly, but maybe in C 91 we can address this problem.
-- 
	bill davidsen		(wedu@ge-crd.arpa)
  {chinet | philabs | sesimo}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen
"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me