Invisible schrieb:
> Indeed. Considering that C is supposedly *the* language for writing 
> low-level code, I find it quite surprising that it provides absolutely 
> no way to select a binary number of a specific size.

That's actually its strength... until it comes to interfacing with the 
outside world, which is where things tend to get ugly.

Not commonly known, C99 also specifies that <stdint.h> shall contain 
typedefs for various integers to be used in case a particular size is 
desired:

- intN_t / uintN_t (e.g. int8_t) for exact size:

These are optional, unfortunately, but it makes sense considering that 
some architecture may have a bigger smallest-addressable-word size.

- int_leastN_t / uint_leastN_t for a certain minimum size:

These are mandatory at least for 8, 16, 32 and 64 bit.

- int_fastN_t / uint_fastN_t for fastest type of mininum size:

These are mandatory at least for 8, 16, 32 and 64 bit.


> It doesn't even 
> seem to provide a vague suggestion of what size you're going to get; 
> it's just random pot luck with each compiler you try...

Oh yes, it does: <types.h> gives you all you need to know about your 
int, short, long etc.

Well, /almost/ all: For some weird reason nobody seemes to have bothered 
mandating a standard #define to figure whether you're on a big-endian or 
little-endian machine.

Post a reply to this message