Re: remark on defining size of basic types

From	fir <fir@grunge.pl>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c
Subject	Re: remark on defining size of basic types
Date	2024-04-04 13:32 +0200
Organization	i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID	<uum354$1l27$1@i2pn2.org> (permalink)
References	<uukp2q$2v3$1@i2pn2.org> <uukrfp$7l0f$2@dont-email.me> <uul0q6$c4i$1@i2pn2.org> <uul461$d88r$1@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw

Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Apr 2024 03:46:46 +0200, fir wrote:
>
>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 04 Apr 2024 01:34:48 +0200, fir wrote:
>>>
>>>> here is a problem in using 64 big ints on windows ...
>>>
>>>       #include <stdint.h>
>>>
>>>       int64_t signed_64bit_int;
>>>       uint64_t unsigned_64bit_int;
>>>
>> maybe but thats not the point
>
> If you want specific-sized types, that’s the standard C mechanism for
> providing them.
>
ok, but my point is maybe the convention to use that standard ones char 
short int long and allowing them to be set (overwiitting defaults) from
the command line would/wouldnt be just better

someone can think here what they want, but i just wanted to pint that
idea (for eventuall discussion if someone wants)

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