Re: New VSI post on Youtube

On 8/15/24 13:34, Simon Clubley wrote:

On 2024-08-14, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:

On 8/14/2024 2:33 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:

And it has different size of long and pointers. Causing problems
for two cases:
* code that make implicit assumptions that those are 32 bit
* mixing C and C++

>
I am getting more and more convinced that C and C++
code should completely switch to the explicit length
model.
>
So:
>
#include <stdint.h>
>
or:
>
#include <cstdint>
>
and use:
>
int8_t
int16_t
int32_t
int64_t
uint8_t
uint16_t
uint32_t
uint64_t
>
and consider putting:
>
#define int ">>>> DO NOT USE INT <<<<"
#define short ">>>> DO NOT USE SHORT <<<<"
#define long ">>>> DO NOT USE LONG <<<<"
>
in as well to enforce.
>
Where did I put that asbestos suit to protect me
from the C/C++ crowd?
>

 That works great until you need to interface to the OS unfortunately.
 BTW, I've been writing my own code with explicit sizing for many years.
 To extend this, I also know the difference between signed and unsigned
variables and I have a default-unsigned approach unless I absolutely
_need_ a signed variable.
 Unfortunately, a lot of the material out there doesn't seem to understand
that designing a program is about modelling a real-world problem and that
it isn't OK to just use a signed integer to store an unsigned value.
 Simon.
 

  Absolutely, must have come from an assembler background, where the use of signed branches and arithmetic, can get you into serious trouble.
The standard C library, of course, tends to use signed variables for
everything, a gross error that has never been fixed...
Chris