Subject: Re: long long vs long
From: [email-masked] (Brian Osman)

23 Jul 1998 19:26:41 -0700
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
References: <73B8DC108A44D111B44700805FF5C69D01E51F@cware>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: [email-masked]

Michael Weiser wrote:
> 
> No because the standard says
> short == 16 bit
> long  == 32 bit
> int   == 16 or 32 depending on the machine's architecture
> 
> For example: Under DOS int is 16 bit while under Win32 und UN*X it is
> 32 bit. So there's no way for long to be 64 bit while conforming to > the standard.
> 
> bye
> 
> Michael

Hmmm. I don't have a copy of the standard laying around, but I do have
Kernighan & Ritchite (2nd ed.) which says

Section 2.2:
....
Each compiler is free to choose appropriate sizes for its own hardware,
subject only to the restriction that shorts and ints are at least 16
bits, longs are at least 32 bits, and short is no longer than int, which
is no longer than long.
....

-Brian
-
For help on using this list (especially unsubscribing), send a message to
"[email-masked]" with one line of text: "help".