home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.std.c
- Path: howland.reston.ans.net!torn!sq!msb
- From: msb@sq.com (Mark Brader)
- Subject: Re: externsions and Standard C
- Message-ID: <1996Mar23.202452.14793@sq.com>
- Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada
- References: <4gum82$14v4@info4.rus.uni-stuttgart.de> <MPLANET.31530e9djcoffin98993e@news.rmii.com> <31536199.219868914@nntp.ix.netcom.com> <315418FA.1508@iadfw.net>
- Date: Sat, 23 Mar 1996 20:24:52 GMT
-
- lfw@iadfw.net writes:
- > Mike Rubenstein wrote:
- > > You've missed a rather subtle point. Such extensions are legal but
- > > they do not introduce integer types. The standard defines the signed
- > > integer types as being signed char, short int, int, and long int (and
- > > similarly for unsigned integer types).
-
- > It must be pretty subtle!
-
- Not at all.
-
- > Can you cite specific Clause references ...
-
- It's in 6.1.2.5/3.1.2.5:
-
- # There are four "signed integer types", designated as signed char,
- # short int, int, and long int ...
-
- It says four, not four or more.
-
- # For each of the signed integer types, there is a corresponding
- # (but different) "unsigned integer type".
-
- It is true that size_t is specified by 6.3.3.4/3.3.3.4 as having an
- "unsigned integral type" rather than "unsigned integer type", but the
- draft Record of Reponse 2 confirms that these terms were not intended
- to be distinguished.
-
- Thus if x is of type size_t, printf ("%ul\n", (unsigned long) x); is
- safe under the present standard.
- --
- Mark Brader And as in nerdish thought he stood,
- msb@sq.com the Jargontalk, with awk and grep,
- SoftQuad Inc. Came geeking through the Cobol wood,
- Toronto and edlin as it schlepped.
- --Larry Colen (after Lewis Carroll)
-
- My text in this article is in the public domain.
-