Re: remark on defining size of basic types

Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes:
[...]

He meant sizeof(short) <= sizeof(int) <= sizeof(long) <= sizeof(long
long)

Which isn't *strictly* true.  The relationships are defined in terms of
ranges, so for example INT_MAX <= LONG_MAX.  A weird but conforming
implementation with padding bits could have sizeof (int) > sizeof
(long).  (As far as I know no such implementation exists.)

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Medtronic
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */