[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: not enough real programmers? (was Re: Byte Magazine: 18 Vintage issues, 1985-1986)
- Subject: Re: not enough real programmers? (was Re: Byte Magazine: 18 Vintage issues, 1985-1986)
- From: Steve@XXX_REMOVE_XXXrsn-tech.demon.co.uk (Steve Rencontre)
- Date: 1999/08/21
- Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers, comp.arch.embedded, comp.sys.apple2
- Organization: RSN Technology
- References: <rpvf9p$0$37nspbj$n2p@corp.supernews.com> <7pgpao$em@sis.cambridge.arm.com> <37bc3e1f.819037@news.pandora.be> <7piv51$1ro$1@thelma.netpower.no> <7pjn9d$9ee@sis.cambridge.arm.com>
- Reply-to: Steve@XXX_REMOVE_XXXrsn-tech.demon.co.uk
On 20 Aug 1999 14:04:29 GMT, in <7pjn9d$9ee@sis.cambridge.arm.com>
Chris.omitthisbit.Brown@arm.andthisbit.com (Chris Brown) wrote:
>short must be at least 16 bits and at most as big as long.
>long must be at least 32 bits.
>int must be at least as big as short and at most as big as long.
>
>So an implementation could set all 3 to 32 bits and be
>conforming. However it cannot, as was originally stated, set all 3 to
>16 bits and still be conforming.
Char can be the same too. The Sharc (ADSP2106x) compiler I'm using
makes /all/ integral types 32 bits.
With care, though, it's still possible to write code that is portable
across 16-bit byte-oriented (eg, x86 real mode), 32-bit byte-oriented
(x86 protected mode) and 32-bit word-oriented (DSP).
--
Steve Rencontre, Design Consultant
http://www.rsn-tech.demon.co.uk/ -- remember to despam return address