Hi On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 12:07:40 +0200 "Martijn van Oosterhout" <kleptog@gmail.com> wrote: > On 9/20/06, Michal Čihař <michal@cihar.com> wrote: > > Nothing says long has to be bigger that int, only thing which is > > defined is: > > > > sizeof(short) <= sizeof(int) <= sizeof(long) > > > > so having short, int, long of same size is not a problem. > > I think you're missing the point. If you make an int 8 bytes, what are > you going to call 4 byte integers? If you call them short, what are > you going to call 2 byte integers? There is something what forces you to have 4 byte and 2 byte types defined? > Anyway, the link to the paper posted in this thread has many much > better arguments. I just wanted to point out that ISO C defines only relationship of sizes of those types and nothing else. The other assumptions come from things we got used to, because they were valid for ILP32 model which has been used most of time. PS: No need to CC me. -- Michal Čihař | http://cihar.com | http://blog.cihar.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature