|
/* $Id: stddef.h,v 1.2 2004/08/04 18:52:23 GrosbaJ Exp $ */
#ifndef __STDDEF_H
#define __STDDEF_H
[...]
typedef unsigned short int size_t;
typedef unsigned short int sizeram_t;
typedef unsigned short long int sizerom_t;
-From mcc18's stddef.h
Subject: "typedef int int" legal?
From: Stephen Sprunk
That "long long" even exists is a travesty.
What are we going to do when 128-bit ints become common in another couple
decades? Call them "long long long"? Or if we redefine "long long" to be
128-bit ints and "long" to be 64-bit ints, will a 32-bit int be a "short
long" or a "long short"? Maybe 32-bit ints will become "short" and 16-bit
ints will be a "long char" or "short short"? Or is a "short short" already
equal to a "char"?
All we need are "int float" and "double int" and the entire C type system
will be perfect! </sarcasm>
Subject: "typedef int int" legal?
From: jacob navia
lcc-win32 supports 128 bit integers. The type is named: int128
Planned is support for 128 bit constants with:
i128 m = 85566677766545455544455543344i128;
and
printf("%i128d",m);
Subject: "typedef int int" legal?
From: Jack Klein (?)
The 256 bit integer type has already been designated "long long long long spam and long".
'nuff said.
- http://www.thescripts.com/forum/threadnav472449-4-10.html
