From: "ppr. P. V Prok" <shilin AT nsi DOT co DOT il>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: type size is NO longer ok
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 11:06:13 +0200
Organization: NSI Ltd.
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <348FAD05.D4A5FA17@nsi.co.il>
References: <348f01e4 DOT 0 AT news DOT arrakis DOT es> <348EFB7F DOT 4E67 AT cs DOT com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.90.156.130
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
Precedence: bulk

John M. Aldrich wrote:

> The only guarantee that you have is the following:
>
>     sizeof(short) >= 2 bytes (16 bits)
>     sizeof(long) >= 4 bytes (32 bits)
>     sizeof(short) <= sizeof(int) <= sizeof(long)
>
>
> (*) There are rare systems that use more than 32 bits for long
> integers.  If you expect your code to be compiled on one of these, you
> must make allowances for them by using appropriate #ifdef blocks to
> detect the systems in question.  In most cases, however, these systems
> use such different architectures that the original purpose of absolute
> type sizes (to deal with binary data files) becomes useless.
>

gcc also supports "long long int " -- 64 bits