From: Erik Max Francis <max AT alcyone DOT com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: Weird problem
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 08:09:06 -0800
Organization: Alcyone Systems
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <33297822.4DD773FA@alcyone.com>
References: <Pine DOT D-G DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 970314092902 DOT 4515B-100000 AT dg1>
NNTP-Posting-Host: newton.alcyone.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

art s. kagel IFMX x2697 wrote:

> In general, it is good coding practice top explicitely use long and short
> rather than int since short is guaranteed to be 'at least 16 bits' and
> long is guaranteed to be 'at least 32 bits' while int is only defined as
> 'the efficient word size' which varies from one machine and compiler to
> another.

Since when?  All you're guaranteed is that sizeof(short) <= sizeof(int) and
sizeof(int) <= sizeof(long), and, as you say, an int "has the natural size
suggested by the architecture of the execution environment" (ANSI C
6.1.2.5).  None of the values are grounded in absolute sizes.  In fact, a
char isn't even guaranteed to be 8 bits!

-- 
       Erik Max Francis, &tSftDotIotE / email:  max AT alcyone DOT com
                     Alcyone Systems /    web:  http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, California, United States /    icbm:  37 20 07 N  121 53 38 W
                                   \
              "I am become death, / destroyer of worlds."
                                 / J. Robert Oppenheimer (quoting legend)