Ben Cantrick (mackys) wrote,
Ben Cantrick
mackys

  • Mood:
  • Music:

"unsigned short long int"


/* $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
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 2 comments