Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #8012
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c++ |
| Subject | Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? |
| Date | 2011-07-21 09:01 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <98ou27FaegU3@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | <ivrpd9$6gv$1@dont-email.me> <ivsgfk$ksu$1@news.albasani.net> <c8406a74-f3d9-4dd5-a3d7-3fb58c4d8ac0@l37g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> <j07eqo$qho$1@dont-email.me> |
On 07/21/11 08:46 AM, JBarleycorn wrote: > James Kanze wrote: >> On Jul 16, 6:02 pm, BGB<cr88...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>> On 7/16/2011 3:33 AM, MikeP wrote: >> >>>> Why is the size of 'bool' unspecified? That makes bools pretty >>>> useless as struct members. If one foregoes bools in structs, why >>>> not then specify that bools should be the size of int and thereby >>>> likely to be fast to pass to and from functions? (Is it less >>>> efficient to pass less-than-word-size integers because then they >>>> have to be sign-extended or zero-extended, or any other reason?) >> >> First, is size of bool unspecified? Or just implementation >> defined? > > Isn't that the same thing? Not in terms of the standard. Implementation defined things have to be defined by the implementation. >> The size of all types is implementation defined (with >> a minimum size). >> >> And I don't see the issue with regards to structs. > > C compatibility where layout, then, matters? Data transfer/storage. Then C++ added bool, C didn't have it so there was no layout compatibility to maintain. >>> IIRC, many compilers default to making them the same size as char, >>> or a single byte. this tends to be most convinient as, bigger, and >>> they are just wasting space, and smaller, as messing with bits is >>> awkward and costly (as well as compromising their direct >>> addressability, ...). >> >> A bool is required to be addressable; sizeof(bool) is also >> required to return an integral value. So a bool can't be >> smaller than a char. On a byte addressable machine, there's >> also no reason to make them bigger, > > Efficiency? Maybe, but efficiency isn't only dependent on size. If it were, we'd be using 64 bit ints on 64 bit machines. -- Ian Collins
Back to comp.lang.c++ | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Size of bool unspecified: why? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-16 05:33 -0500
Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-16 10:02 -0700
Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? James Kanze <james.kanze@gmail.com> - 2011-07-20 13:05 -0700
Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? "JBarleycorn" <jbnh2o@newsnet.org> - 2011-07-20 15:46 -0500
Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-21 09:01 +1200
Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? "JBarleycorn" <jbnh2o@newsnet.org> - 2011-07-20 19:32 -0500
Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-21 14:46 +1200
Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? "JBarleycorn" <jbnh2o@newsnet.org> - 2011-07-20 23:28 -0500
Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-21 16:43 +1200
Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? "JBarleycorn" <jbnh2o@newsnet.org> - 2011-07-21 02:56 -0500
Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-21 20:19 +1200
Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? "JBarleycorn" <jbnh2o@newsnet.org> - 2011-07-21 18:29 -0500
Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-22 11:40 +1200
Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? "JBarleycorn" <jbnh2o@newsnet.org> - 2011-07-21 22:33 -0500
Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-22 15:46 +1200
Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? "JBarleycorn" <jbnh2o@newsnet.org> - 2011-07-21 23:07 -0500
Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-22 16:12 +1200
Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-31 18:45 +1200
Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-22 00:12 -0700
Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? James Kanze <james.kanze@gmail.com> - 2011-07-22 11:10 -0700
Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? "JBarleycorn" <jbnh2o@newsnet.org> - 2011-07-22 16:52 -0500
Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-23 09:55 +1200
Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? James Kanze <james.kanze@gmail.com> - 2011-07-22 11:01 -0700
Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? "JBarleycorn" <jbnh2o@newsnet.org> - 2011-07-22 17:17 -0500
Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-23 10:46 +1200
Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? James Kanze <james.kanze@gmail.com> - 2011-07-24 03:48 -0700
Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-24 12:40 -0500
Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? James Kanze <james.kanze@gmail.com> - 2011-07-30 11:22 -0700
Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach:usenet@gmail.com> - 2011-07-31 02:33 +0200
Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? James Kanze <james.kanze@gmail.com> - 2011-07-30 11:34 -0700
Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach:usenet@gmail.com> - 2011-07-25 04:46 +0200
Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? James Kanze <james.kanze@gmail.com> - 2011-07-21 07:23 -0700
Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? "JBarleycorn" <jbnh2o@newsnet.org> - 2011-07-21 18:52 -0500
Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? James Kanze <james.kanze@gmail.com> - 2011-07-22 11:24 -0700
Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? "JBarleycorn" <jbnh2o@newsnet.org> - 2011-07-22 17:22 -0500
Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-23 10:51 +1200
Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-22 00:17 -0700
Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-22 04:26 -0500
Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? James Kanze <james.kanze@gmail.com> - 2011-07-21 02:09 -0700
Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? "JBarleycorn" <jbnh2o@newsnet.org> - 2011-07-21 19:11 -0500
Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? James Kanze <james.kanze@gmail.com> - 2011-07-22 11:58 -0700
Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? "JBarleycorn" <jbnh2o@newsnet.org> - 2011-07-22 17:48 -0500
Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-21 08:41 -0700
Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? "JBarleycorn" <jbnh2o@newsnet.org> - 2011-07-21 19:14 -0500
Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? James Kanze <james.kanze@gmail.com> - 2011-07-22 12:01 -0700
Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? "JBarleycorn" <jbnh2o@newsnet.org> - 2011-07-22 17:51 -0500
Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? Noah Roberts <dont@email.me> - 2011-07-20 16:57 -0700
Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? James Kanze <james.kanze@gmail.com> - 2011-07-21 07:29 -0700
Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? "JBarleycorn" <jbnh2o@newsnet.org> - 2011-07-21 19:24 -0500
Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-22 12:33 +1200
Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? "JBarleycorn" <jbnh2o@newsnet.org> - 2011-07-21 22:42 -0500
Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? James Kanze <james.kanze@gmail.com> - 2011-07-21 01:59 -0700
Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? "JBarleycorn" <jbnh2o@newsnet.org> - 2011-07-21 19:42 -0500
Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? James Kanze <james.kanze@gmail.com> - 2011-07-22 12:20 -0700
Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? "JBarleycorn" <jbnh2o@newsnet.org> - 2011-07-22 18:21 -0500
Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-16 22:23 -0500
Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-17 00:07 -0500
Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-17 17:15 +1200
Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-17 00:24 -0500
Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-17 02:02 -0500
Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-17 03:02 -0500
Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-17 03:23 -0500
Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-17 05:36 -0500
Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? "James" <no@spam.invalid> - 2011-07-17 16:24 -0700
Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-18 06:49 -0500
Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? "James" <no@spam.invalid> - 2011-07-18 16:46 -0700
Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-19 11:59 +1200
Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-19 22:18 -0500
Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-17 03:04 -0500
Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-22 00:32 -0700
Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-22 00:41 -0700
Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-07-17 13:50 +0000
Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-18 06:50 -0500
Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? James Kanze <james.kanze@gmail.com> - 2011-07-20 13:06 -0700
Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? Pawel Dziepak <pdziepak@quarnos.org> - 2011-07-21 12:59 +0000
Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? James Kanze <james.kanze@gmail.com> - 2011-07-21 07:11 -0700
Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? "JBarleycorn" <jbnh2o@newsnet.org> - 2011-07-21 19:21 -0500
Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? James Kanze <james.kanze@gmail.com> - 2011-07-22 12:28 -0700
csiph-web