From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	PLING_QUERY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: fdb77,4873305131bf4d94
X-Google-Attributes: gidfdb77,public
X-Google-Thread: 109fba,4873305131bf4d94
X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public
X-Google-Thread: 1014db,4873305131bf4d94
X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,4873305131bf4d94
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: mkeesan@kenan.com (Morris M. Keesan)
Subject: Re: How big is an int? (was: Yet another stupid language war (was:
 ... the only languages you need!!))
Date: 1997/11/06
Message-ID: <3461ee56.265363281@news>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 287442827
References: <34557f2b.1934172@news.mindspring.com>
 <63oadj$ljc$1@helios.crest.nt.com>
 <w0b4t5r428o.fsf@mah21awm.i-have-a-misconfigured-system-so-shoot-me>
 <63qkp9$bqr$3@darla.visi.com> <63r2sv$rgm$1@helios.crest.nt.com>
Organization: Kenan Systems Corporation
Newsgroups: 
 comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++
Date: 1997-11-06T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


On 5 Nov 1997 16:27:11 -0800, kaz@helios.crest.nt.com (Kaz Kylheku)
wrote:
>In article <63qkp9$bqr$3@darla.visi.com>,
>Peter Seebach <seebs@plethora.net> wrote:
...
>>No.  Short is not required to be any smaller than long, nor any larger
>>than char.  A system where all four types are 64-bits is conforming.
>
>But it cannot be a conforming hosted implementation, as I pointed out
>in the other article, because the getc() and putc() functions require
>the int type to represent everything in the range of 0 to UCHAR_MAX,
>plus the extra value EOF. It therefore follows that a hosted implementation
>requires the additional requirement:
>
>    char < int

Here's where the problem of using this poorly-defined '<' notation comes
in.  If the < is interpreted to mean "has a smaller range of values
than", then the above is correct.  But I maintain that a conforming
hosted implementation can exist where sizeof(char) == sizeof(int), as
long as UCHAR_MAX < UINT_MAX.  E.g., I believe the following would be
conforming:

#define EOF (-1)
#define CHAR_BITS 64
#define UCHAR_MAX 0x7fffffffffffffff
#define SCHAR_MAX UCHAR_MAX
#define UINT_MAX  0xffffffffffffffff

where sizeof(int) == sizeof(char)
      sizeof(long) == sizeof(int)

-- 
Morris M. Keesan -- mkeesan@kenan.com
Kenan Systems Corporation