Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2016 14:09:17 +0300 From: croco@...nwall.com To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: the size of the int type On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 09:11:25PM +0000, Josiah Worcester wrote: > You would do better to match the convention used on modern-day Unix > systems, where int is 32-bit, long is the machine word size, and long long > is 64-bit. If you do this everything should pretty much function as it > expects, with regard to the standard C types' sizes. Let me second this. Please note that in case you implement int as 64-bit, then there will be either no 32-bit or no 16-bit integer type (at all), as there's only the short which is in between char ant int; hence, well, there will be a kind of problem with some typedefs from <stdint.h>: either int16_t/uint16_t or int32_t/uint32_t will actually have a size different from what the name suggests, so you'll run into a trouble with reading/analysing data in binary formats. -- Croco
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.