Felix Nawothnig wrote: > Alexander Strasser wrote: > > This no-guarantee-about-sizes-in-C thing begins to hurt nowadays ;) > > ANSI C89 guarantees quite some stuff about sizes: > > At least 8 bit for chars, at least 16 bit for shorts and ints, and at > least 32 bit for longs (and I guess ISO C99 adds at least 64 bit for > long longs). > > It also guarantees that sizeof(char) <= sizeof(short) <= sizeof(int) <= > sizeof(long). (again I guess ISO C99 adds <= sizeof(long long)) > > And then there are the fixed size types in ISO C99 ofcourse...
I know that there are some relative guarantees, but that wasn't what i meant (or it was; depends on your view). > >Maybe it is really best to use special types like int_fast32_t > >these times... (or role your own set of types to replace them > >with the appropriate type depending on compiler and arch). > > There is no such thing as a fast 32bit integer on sane (read: non > x86-64) 64bit architectures. Sorry, I don't get what you say here. What I said was especially in regard to the decision of some compilers to use the LP64 or LLP64 type models. Alex (beastd) _______________________________________________ Tinycc-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
