Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #71163
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c++ |
| Subject | Re: uint32_t is not the same as long unsigned int ? |
| Date | 2020-01-05 20:50 -0500 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <quu3pr$qfp$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (3 earlier) <quq8k3$4he$1@dont-email.me> <8736cuon1x.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <quri9q$gtd$2@dont-email.me> <87tv5amuuw.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <qurr24$kg3$1@dont-email.me> |
On 1/5/20 12:09 AM, Alf P. Steinbach wrote: > On 05.01.2020 04:43, Keith Thompson wrote: >> James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> writes: >>> On 1/4/20 5:48 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: >> [...] >>>> You're right. N4567 3.9.1 [basic.fundamental] paragraph 3 says: >>>> >>>> The signed and unsigned integer types shall satisfy the constraints >>>> given in the C standard, section 5.2.4.2.1. >>>> >>>> My earlier post was based on N4842, which is a working draft for C++20 >>>> (and happens to be the document that I had open at the time). In that >>>> draft, 6.8.1 [basic.fundamental] paragraph 3 includes a table showing >>>> the minimum widths of the 5 signed integer types: >>>> >>>> Type Minimum width N >>>> signed char 8 >>>> short 16 >>>> int 16 >>>> long 32 >>>> long long 64 >>>> >>>> The widths are sufficient to specify the ranges, since unlike the >>>> current edition of the C++ standard, N4842 mandates 2's-complement >>>> for signed integers, including the extra negative value: >> [snip] >>> It hadn't occurred to me that this might be something they were planning >>> to change. I wonder if they're planning to change any other features >>> from "incorporate by reference" to "copy wording with modifications"? >> >> I don't know. In this particular case the C++ requirements are >> diverging from the C requirements. > > We're ruled by "they". "They" are the ISO C++ committee.
Back to comp.lang.c++ | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
uint32_t is not the same as long unsigned int ? wolfgang bauer <schutz@gmx.de> - 2020-01-04 04:50 +0100
Re: uint32_t is not the same as long unsigned int ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2020-01-03 23:18 -0500
Re: uint32_t is not the same as long unsigned int ? wolfgang bauer <schutz@gmx.de> - 2020-01-04 05:36 +0100
Re: uint32_t is not the same as long unsigned int ? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2020-01-04 00:19 -0600
Re: uint32_t is not the same as long unsigned int ? Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@delq.com> - 2020-01-03 22:29 -0800
Re: uint32_t is not the same as long unsigned int ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-01-03 23:56 -0800
Re: uint32_t is not the same as long unsigned int ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2020-01-04 09:48 -0500
Re: uint32_t is not the same as long unsigned int ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-01-04 14:48 -0800
Re: uint32_t is not the same as long unsigned int ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2020-01-04 21:39 -0500
Re: uint32_t is not the same as long unsigned int ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-01-04 19:43 -0800
Re: uint32_t is not the same as long unsigned int ? "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2020-01-05 06:09 +0100
Re: uint32_t is not the same as long unsigned int ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2020-01-05 20:50 -0500
Re: uint32_t is not the same as long unsigned int ? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2020-01-04 08:37 +0000
Re: uint32_t is not the same as long unsigned int ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-01-04 02:16 -0800
Thank you. (was:Re: uint32_t is not the same as long unsigned int ?) wolfgang bauer <schutz@gmx.de> - 2020-01-04 15:15 +0100
csiph-web