Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 09:58:20 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Laurynas Biveinis <lauras AT softhome DOT net>
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: stdint.h
In-Reply-To: <20010204073927.4381.qmail@lauras.lt>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010204095531.20547S-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On Sun, 4 Feb 2001, Laurynas Biveinis wrote:

> > +typedef signed char int_fast8_t;
> > +typedef unsigned char uint_fast8_t;
> 
> Unless I am severely mistaken:
> 
> If fast_t types are supposed to be the fastest ones
> for a given size, maybe it's better to use int?

Thanks for the feedback.

However, I didn't find any evidence that an int is faster than a char.  
Can you provide such an evidence, e.g., by looking at the code produced 
by gcc 2.9X and counting cycles?

FWIW, glibc also uses char for *_fast8_t types.

> > +typedef signed int int_fast16_t;
> > +typedef unsigned int uint_fast16_t;
> 
> Likewise there.

Well, these _are_ 32-bit int's, aren't they? ;-)