Re: 100 Things

From	"Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.misc
Subject	Re: 100 Things
Date	2014-05-01 16:08 -0400
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<op.xe657plx6zenlw@localhost> (permalink)
References	<3SQ7v.155346$AI5.24849@fx32.am4> <ljq5sv$coh$1@dont-email.me> <kY48v.181432$Ey6.180503@fx24.am4> <op.xe5porqb6zenlw@localhost> <fTn8v.204519$q95.52415@fx22.am4>

Show all headers | View raw

On Thu, 01 May 2014 04:26:11 -0400, BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
> "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> wrote in message  
> news:op.xe5porqb6zenlw@localhost...
>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 07:16:19 -0400, BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:

>>> [intN_t etc]
>>
>> How often do you use those?
>
> It's common to use some of those at some time or other, if not all at
> the same time. You've never used CHARBIT

Um, I can say I generally never use them, and probably never.  I can't
say with 100% certainty that I've never, ever used them.  I'd need to
search my code which I have no desire to do.  It's possible I used them
long ago or in special, rare situations.

Mostly, I use a subset of ANSI C.  So, they're not a part of that subset,
but sometimes I do use other C features, library calls, and include
files, although I use those other things very rarely.

> or needed an exact 32-bit signed int?

Until recently, I've almost never used signed, unsigned only.  I've been
working on getting comfortable without 'unsigned' and dropping some of
the "unecessary" or "useless" 'unsigned' keywords with simple things
like 'int' returns or 'char'.

I do have one program that I'm aware of that uses signed.  It needed
to keep a value which could go positive or negative.  That can be done
with unsigned, but requires more work.  Also, I needed to display the
sign, and detecting negative values makes that easier.  So, I went
ahead and used signed for it.  I'm probably used signed decades ago
when I was first learning C.  Of course, I don't change other people's
code to use unsigned.

So, I use 'unsigned long' for 32-bits.  Fortunately, on x86, the compilers
I'm using use 32-bits for it, short 16, char 8.  If 'unsigned long' is
64-bits on some/all 64-bit compilers and 'unsigned long long' is 128-bits,
that could break some of my code, but probably not.  If 'unsigned long  
long'
is 64-bits on most 64-bit compilers, I'm probably good.  That would likely
mean 'unsigned long' is 32, short 16, char 8, as I prefer.  I.e.,each a
progressively larger multiple by 2 starting at 8.

I generally try to keep to ANSI C, so the C99 'uint' extensions aren't
formally available.  GCC generally allows but warns.  E.g., I sometimes
use 'long long' C99 sprintf() format specifiers in ANSI C code (-ansi)
with GCC.  Other compilers will fail that.

Rod Pemberton

Thread

C: 100 Things "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-29 17:57 +0100
  Re: 100 Things "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2014-04-30 07:40 +0100
    Re: 100 Things "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-30 12:16 +0100
      Re: 100 Things "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2014-04-30 13:54 +0100
        Re: 100 Things "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-30 14:39 +0100
          Re: 100 Things "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2014-04-30 20:18 +0100
            Re: 100 Things "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-30 22:40 +0100
              Re: 100 Things Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-04-30 22:09 +0000
                Re: 100 Things "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-30 23:36 +0100
                Re: 100 Things Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2014-05-01 11:03 +1200
                Re: 100 Things "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-05-01 09:47 +0100
              Re: 100 Things "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2014-05-01 00:35 +0100
                Re: 100 Things Andy Walker <news@cuboid.co.uk> - 2014-05-01 11:03 +0100
                Re: 100 Things "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-05-01 20:16 +0100
                Re: 100 Things "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-05-01 12:44 +0100
                Re: 100 Things "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2014-05-02 11:11 +0100
                Re: 100 Things "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-05-02 13:32 +0100
                Re: 100 Things "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2014-05-02 16:42 +0100
                Re: 100 Things "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-05-02 17:54 +0100
          Re: 100 Things Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2014-05-01 11:01 +1200
      Re: 100 Things "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-04-30 21:13 -0400
        Re: 100 Things "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-05-01 09:26 +0100
          Re: 100 Things "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-05-01 16:08 -0400
      Re: 100 Things Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2014-05-01 13:42 +1200
        Re: 100 Things "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-05-01 09:35 +0100
          Re: 100 Things Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2014-05-01 21:02 +1200
            Re: 100 Things "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-05-01 10:40 +0100
              Re: 100 Things Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2014-05-01 22:06 +1200
          Re: 100 Things "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2014-05-01 11:08 +0200
            Re: 100 Things "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-05-01 11:02 +0100
              Re: 100 Things "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2014-05-01 13:57 +0200
                Re: 100 Things "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-05-01 15:12 +0100
                Re: 100 Things "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2014-05-01 17:18 +0200
                Re: 100 Things "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-05-01 17:04 +0100
                Re: 100 Things Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-05-01 18:30 +0000
                Re: 100 Things "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-05-01 16:08 -0400
                Re: 100 Things Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2014-05-02 08:30 +1200
                Re: 100 Things George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2014-05-03 01:29 -0400
                Re: 100 Things "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-05-03 02:37 -0400
                Re: 100 Things George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2014-05-03 15:39 -0400
                Re: 100 Things "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-05-03 17:30 -0400
                Re: 100 Things Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2014-05-04 20:05 +1200
                Re: 100 Things George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2014-05-04 13:28 -0400
                Re: 100 Things Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2014-05-05 07:40 +1200
                Re: 100 Things "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2014-05-01 22:00 +0200
                Re: 100 Things "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-05-01 23:24 +0100
                Re: 100 Things "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2014-05-02 08:59 +0200
                Re: 100 Things "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-05-02 09:53 +0100
                Re: 100 Things "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2014-05-02 11:22 +0200
                Re: 100 Things Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-05-01 18:26 +0000
                Re: 100 Things "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-05-01 16:08 -0400
                Re: 100 Things Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-05-02 02:49 +0000
  Re: C: 100 Things "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-04-30 22:08 -0400
  Re: C: 100 Things "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-07-25 23:53 +0100
    Re: C: 100 Things "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-07-26 05:38 -0400
      Re: C: 100 Things "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-07-26 13:51 +0100
        Re: C: 100 Things rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com - 2014-10-25 04:48 -0700
  Re: C: 100 Things "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2014-10-25 04:50 -0700

csiph-web