Re: VMS

c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> writes:

On 6/27/25 1:40 PM, rbowman wrote:

On Fri, 27 Jun 2025 13:24:06 -0400, c186282 wrote:

Some of us are old enough to remember when CPUs were not always
4/8/16/32/64 ... plus even now they've added a lot of new types like
128-bit ints. Simply ASSUMING an int is 16 bits is 'usually safe'
but not necessarily 'best practice' and limits future (or past)
compatibility. 'C' lets you fly free ...  but that CAN be straight
into a window pane

Assuming an int is 16 bits is not a good idea. I wouldn't even assume
a short is 16 bits

(Apart from c186282 who for some reason thinks it’s “usually safe”,
nobody here is making any such assumption about int.)

Voice of experience for sure. Things have been represented/handled
just SO many ways over the years. Using sizeof() is 'best practice'
even if you're Just Sure how wide an int or whatever may be. 24 bits
are still found in some DSPs and you MAY be asked someday to patch or
port one of the old 12/18/24/36/48 programs.

The thread is not about the size of int, etc. It’s about the specific
case of sizeof(char) in C, and that is always 1.

--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/