In article <84931@ut-emx.uucp>, jamshid@ut-emx.uucp (Jamshid Afshar) writes:
|> In article <1992Nov30.204147.7955@cimage.com> ejd@cimage.com (Ed Driscoll) writes:
|> |The typedefs I proposed
|> |would all specify size in bits, either exactly or at least that many bits.
|> |Using your example, there might be an at-least-18-bits type and an
|> |exactly-18-bits type (both with variations for signed and unsigned, I
|> |suppose). So there'd be no way to get confused about how many bits you
|> |were getting unless the typedefs themselves were incorrect.
|>
|> I don't understand the purpose of the "at-least-N-bits" types. C
|> already has those -- char (>=8), short (>=16), int (>=16), and long
|> (>=32). What does your extra level of indirection buy you?
You are'nt correct:
int is as long as a single machine word on the machine (on some machines this means 12bit), on this machines also a short is 12bit long and a long is 24bits long...
The same is with characters
Some compilers will give you only the original ASCII-Characterset and a char-value with this machines is 7bit long, all other bits stored in memory for this value will be ignored...
