Lpc2000

At 08:51 AM 11/10/2005, rtstofer wrote:


> > That is wrong.  The C standard requires that the following
>equality and
> > inequalities hold:
> >
> > 1 = sizeof(char)
> >
> > sizeof(char) <= sizeof(short) <= sizeof(int) <= sizeof(long) <=
> > sizeof(long long)
> >
>
>As I understood the debate, the C99 spec has changed the inequality
>to strictly <  not <= so there had to be a difference in size
>between the various types.  But this may not be correct...
>

Richard, I don't recall whether they use the same language for C86/C89/etc. 
or not, but my reading of your excerpt is that your interpretation is 
incorrect. Looks to me that under C99, it is still

sizeof(char) <= sizeof(short) <= sizeof(int) <= sizeof(long) <= sizeof(long 
long)

> >From the C99 standard section 6.3.1.1:
>
>6.3.1.1 Boolean, characters, and integers
>1 Every integer type has an integer conversion rank defined as
>follows:
>
>— No two signed integer types shall have the same rank, even if they
>have the same representation.
>
>— The rank of a signed integer type shall be greater than the rank
>of any signed integer type with less precision.
>
>— The rank of long long int shall be greater than the rank of long
>int, which shall be greater than the rank of int, which shall be
>greater than the rank of short int, which shall be greater than the
>rank of signed char.
>
>— The rank of any unsigned integer type shall equal the rank of the
>corresponding signed integer type, if any.
>
>But, I think the real answer is in section 7.18 where the standard
>deals with <stdint.h> and defines macros that represent specific
>widths.  I think I need to read this a little more carefully.
>
>Then there is the matter of which standard applies; '99 or something
>earlier.  Oh, and whether the compiler in question even claims
>standard compliance.  Some don't...
>
>Richard
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

// richard (This email is for mailing lists. To reach me directly, please 
use richard at imagecraft.com)