Re: remark on defining size of basic types

On 4/4/24 20:04, Janis Papanagnou wrote:

On 04.04.2024 19:04, Michael S wrote:

...

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

 
Yes, indeed I meant the size of the data types. The comparison
operators of the _values_ of data types wouldn't quite fit on
the topic at all, or so I thought. (Sorry for potentially bad
wording and any possible misinterpretation.)
 
I thought I've read about those properties at K&R times, that
these properties would hold, but a quick look into some old C
and UNIX books did not show that; only a comment that 'short'
is not larger than 'long'. But I found it in Stroustrup's C++
language book.
 
Not sure whether that's formally standardized for C.

Restrictions on the representable ranges (NOT the sizes) of
various integer types are formally imposed by the standard. My response
to Michael's message lists those restrictions in terms of the limit
macros, though that's not how the standard expresses the requirements.