Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Keith Thompson Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: sizeof Data types Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2016 11:42:03 -0700 Organization: None to speak of Lines: 28 Message-ID: References: <4ccb69e9-3af1-4bf7-8893-773508c03bf9@googlegroups.com> <450a4877-bb68-48d5-b24e-123ca59569a1@googlegroups.com> <433a7e7e-5f86-4a08-864f-f6074bf53cc8@googlegroups.com> <4dd0dbcf-53cc-476a-bd6c-f57425d08ae2@googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="945944de09706c9b4e29b53c9d2efdc2"; logging-data="18686"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX190x8qhO6Juenb7Yx1WQEgb" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:KloM1kS8NuufxfuCzdFIQeTvJv8= sha1:oGsVa8/qe8hJp+ltFH51dGbffB8= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:92091 supercat@casperkitty.com writes: > On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 2:38:28 AM UTC-5, David Brown wrote: >> uint16_t is either "unsigned short", "unsigned int", or an unsigned >> extended integer type of lower rank than "unsigned int". > > Is there any prohibition of extended integer types whose rank is between > that of "int" and "long" (a lot of code for 8-bit micros could benefit from > having a 24-bit type, for example)? No. > If not, would there be any > prohibition against int16_t and uint16_t ranking above "int" and "unsigned"? Yes. N1570 6.3.1.1: The rank of any standard integer type shall be greater than the rank of any extended integer type with the same width. But int24_t and uint24_t could have a rank above int and below long. [...] -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc. "We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this." -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"