Date:	Thu, 13 May 1999 16:18:56 +0300 (IDT)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	Guillermo Rodriguez Garcia <XXguille AT XXiies DOT XXes>
cc:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: Portability and size_t type related question
In-Reply-To:	<373b1a09.3346354@noticias.iies.es>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.990513161505.12629T-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Thu, 13 May 1999, Guillermo Rodriguez Garcia wrote:

> >> Like 'char' is always 1 byte.
> >
> >That's not true, either.  There are compilers (mostly for embedded 
> >systems) where `char' is 32-bit wide.
> 
> Then a byte is defined as 32 bits on those systems.

AFAIK, there's no such thing as a `byte' in the C language description.  
So defining a byte as 32 bits doesn't help for the issue at hand which 
had to do with portability of C programs.

Most people think that byte is a synonym for 8 bits.

> The
> exact definition of byte, for every system, is the minimum addressable
> memory unit.

I'm not against this definition, but I'm not sure it's true.  A compiler 
for embedded system could disallow 8-bit bytes because that would produce 
inefficient code, not because individual bytes aren't addressable.

- Raw text -