From: XXguille AT XXiies DOT XXes (Guillermo Rodriguez Garcia)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: Portability and size_t type related question
Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 22:41:56 GMT
Organization: Telefonica Transmision de Datos
Lines: 35
Message-ID: <37405524.9079977@noticias.iies.es>
References: <199905131629 DOT SAA32708 AT acp3bf DOT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de>
NNTP-Posting-Host: iies249.iies.es
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

El día Thu, 13 May 1999 18:29:12 +0200, Hans-Bernhard Broeker
<broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de> escribió:

>> AFAIK, there's no such thing as a `byte' in the C language description.  
>
>At least in the C9x draft standard, there is. Quote:
>
[...]
>
>AFAIK, effectively the same definition is part of the current C89
>standard as well.

Yes, you're right. This is the definition in the current standard, and
it is also explained in the rationale, which I quoted in a recent
message.

>> Most people think that byte is a synonym for 8 bits.
>
>I'm aware of that. But that doesn't make it correct, at least not from
>a 'language-lawyer' point of view. Actually, the equivalence of 8 bits
>being a byte is a rather recent invention, compared to the use of the
>'byte' in computing. There have been 7-bit bytes, 9-bit ones. 8 bits
>just happens to be *so* common today that most of us, esp. those who
>grew up on 8-bit home-computers, tend to think it's the only possible
>definition.

Agreed. For ANSI-C, however, a byte must be *at least* 8-bit wide.
That means that machines with 7-bit bytes cannot be hosts or targets
for a conforming implementation.

Regards,
GUILLE
----
Guillermo Rodriguez Garcia
XXguille AT XXiies DOT XXes (ya sabes :-)