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