long_int vs int byte sizes
Eric Blake
eblake@redhat.com
Mon Apr 7 15:39:00 GMT 2014
On 04/07/2014 08:42 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Apr 7 08:16, Eric Blake wrote:
>> On 04/07/2014 02:47 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> There's no standard which restricts the sizes of the datatypes in
>>> that way. There's only this rule to follow:
>>>
>>> sizeof (char) <= sizeof (short) <= sizeof (int) <= sizeof (long)
>>
>> Well, there IS the C rule that sizeof(char)==1, and also that char holds
>>> = 8 bits, short holds >= 8 bits, int holds >= 16 bits, long holds >= 32
>> bits. There is also a POSIX rule that CHAR_BITS==8 (so while C allows a
>> 9-bit or 32-bit char [and yes, such machines exist, although rare],
>> POSIX does not allow that).
>
> Apart from POSIX, where is that defined?
C99 5.2.4.2.1 Sizes of integer types <limits.h>
requires CHAR_BIT to be 8 or larger, UCHAR_MAX to be 255 or larger,
USHRT_MAX to be 65535 or larger (oh, so I was wrong above; 8-bit short
is not allowed), UINT_MAX to be 65535 or larger, ULONG_MAX to be
4294967295 or larger, and ULLONG_MAX to be 18446744073709551615 or larger.
POSIX then requires CHAR_BIT to be exactly 8.
> The old K&R rules only defined
> the sizes of the datatypes in comparison to each other, but it never
> defined minimum sizes. If you have a 7 bit machine and you only use
> ASCII, you can be happy ever after. And while it *suggested* that short
> < long, it didn't demand it.
K&R C probably did allow for 7-bit char. I'm not sure off-hand what C89
required, but C99 definitely prohibits a 7-bit char type. However, you
ARE correct that C99 allows sizeof(short)==sizeof(long)==1 for platforms
with 32-bit char. Again, all that C requires is a <= relationship
between each progressively higher rank type, so the only thing we can't
have is sizeof(short)>sizeof(long).
>
>> POSIX does not allow that). But in general, on most modern porting
>> platforms, 'long' is a redundant type - it will either be equal in size
>> to 'int' (typical for a 32-bit machine) or to a 'long long' (typical for
>> a 64-bit machine); it only mattered on 16-bit machines which are now
>> museum pieces.
>
> Xstormy16?
Okay, so maybe 16-bit machines aren't all museum pieces - but they also
aren't portability targets for the majority of programs run on cygwin :)
--
Eric Blake eblake redhat com +1-919-301-3266
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 604 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://cygwin.com/pipermail/cygwin/attachments/20140407/afb139c5/attachment.sig>
More information about the Cygwin
mailing list