Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #384164

Re: remark on defining size of basic types

Show all headers | View raw

On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 12:02:16 -0400
James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:

> On 4/4/24 09:15, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
> ...
> > Since I remember C had always just defined a '<=' (or '>=') relation
> > between the unsized basic integral data types.  
> 
> There's several things not quite right about the form of that
> sentence, so I'm not quite sure what you meant to say, but C
> originally defined the relational operators for any arithmetic type
> (and for pointers to compatible object types), including the unsigned
> types..
> 
> Some complications have been added since then. When extended integer
> types and _Bool were added, the definitions were adjusted so that the
> integer promotion rules apply to _Bool, and extended integer types are
> included along with other integer types. When _Complex and _Imaginary
> were added, the operands to the relational operators were explicitly
> required to be real (which, as C defines the term, includes all
> integer types). When decimal floating types were introduced, they
> added a prohibition on comparing such values with values that had a
> standard floating types. However, nothing matching the restrictions
> you imply has ever been true.
> 

He meant sizeof(short) <= sizeof(int) <= sizeof(long) <= sizeof(long
long)

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

remark on defining size of basic types fir <fir@grunge.pl> - 2024-04-04 01:34 +0200
  Re: remark on defining size of basic types Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-04-04 00:15 +0000
    Re: remark on defining size of basic types fir <fir@grunge.pl> - 2024-04-04 03:46 +0200
      Re: remark on defining size of basic types Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-04-04 02:44 +0000
        Re: remark on defining size of basic types fir <fir@grunge.pl> - 2024-04-04 13:32 +0200
          Re: remark on defining size of basic types Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-04-04 15:15 +0200
            Re: remark on defining size of basic types James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-04-04 12:02 -0400
              Re: remark on defining size of basic types Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-04-04 20:04 +0300
                Re: remark on defining size of basic types Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-04-04 13:10 -0700
                Re: remark on defining size of basic types Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-04-05 02:04 +0200
                Re: remark on defining size of basic types James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-04-05 00:43 -0400
                Re: remark on defining size of basic types James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-04-04 19:39 -0400
                Re: remark on defining size of basic types Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-04-04 22:22 -0700
            Re: remark on defining size of basic types Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-04-04 23:38 +0000
              Re: remark on defining size of basic types Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-04-05 02:25 +0200
                Re: remark on defining size of basic types Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-04-05 00:46 +0000
                Re: remark on defining size of basic types Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-04-05 08:30 +0200
                Re: remark on defining size of basic types Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-04-05 07:18 +0000
                Re: remark on defining size of basic types Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-04-05 17:19 +0300
                Re: remark on defining size of basic types Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-04-05 08:07 -0700
              Re: remark on defining size of basic types gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2024-04-05 02:56 +0000

csiph-web