>> 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.

And given that currently the number one use for C is to interface with 
the outside world... strange choice, that.

> 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.

Mmm, interesting. (But, presumably, unused?)

>> 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.

I don't see anything useful listed - unless I'm looking at the wrong file...

Post a reply to this message