Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes:
That table suggests that any program mixing 'short' and 'int' is suspect. If 'int' doesn't need to store values beyond 16 bits, then why not use 'short'?I suspected that, but was not sure, so suggested to DFS a type that I amThe width of char and [un]signed char must be at least 8 bits.
sure about.
The width of [un]signed short must be at least 16 bits.
The width of [un]signed int must be at least 16 bits.
The width of [un]signed long must be at least 32 bits.
The width of [un]signed long long must be at least 64 bits.
That should be easy enough to remember now.
'long' is another troublesome one. If the need is for 32-bit values, then it's surprisingly rare in source code.
In practice, most code now assumes that 'int' is 32 bits, and 'long' is inadvisedly used for 64 bits, since its actual width is typically:
long
Windows 32-bit 32 bits
Windows 64-bit 32 bits
Linux 32-bit 32 bits
Linux 64-bit 64 bits
My suggestion for writing code that is not going to run on 16-bit or lesser (or unusual) hardware is to assume:
char 8 bits
short 16 bits
int 32 bits
long long 64 bits
and to forget 'long'.
| Date | Sujet | # | Auteur | |
| 22 Apr 26 |  … |
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.