I learned this lesson when int was 16 bit, and short was the same as
char.
I'm old.
The lesson, by the way, is that C is a bit rubbish; I recommend using
named size integer types, like u64 (or possibly uint64_t, or some
other "standard", perhaps).
Ideally, a language should allow you to declare integer variables
like 0..100, 1..7, 1..12, etc. (and ensure any value written fits),
but there you go.
Von: Aleksandar Kuktin <[email protected]>
An: [email protected]
Betreff: [fun] unsigned int is not big enough
Datum: Fri, 07 Sep 2012 22:59:51 +0200
I just ran into a fun little thing I thought I ought to share with
people.
I am writing a program for calculating the standardised mortality
rates
from various diseases, when I noticed that an unsigned int as well as
an unsigned long on 32-bit x86 architectures is simply not big
enough.
On x86_32, both are 4 octets wide, while on x86_64, only int is 4
octets wide. That means they can store values up to 2**32-1 which is
about 4.3 billion which is NOT ENOUGH if you want to calculate
world-wide statistics!
And there I was, foolishly believing that unsigned int so BIG, that I
will never in my life really have to worry about its size. Oh, what a
fool I was.
--
Fourth law of programming:
Anything that can go wrong wi
sendmail: segmentation violation - core dumped
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-chat [1]
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ [2]
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Links:
------
[1]
?ctl=dereferer&to=aHR0cDovL2xpbnV4ZnJvbXNjcmF0Y2gub3JnL21haWxtYW4vbGlzdGluZm8vbGZzLWNoYXQ%3D
[2]
?ctl=dereferer&to=aHR0cDovL3d3dy5saW51eGZyb21zY3JhdGNoLm9yZy9mYXEv
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-chat
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
