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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 1014db,4873305131bf4d94 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,4873305131bf4d94 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,4873305131bf4d94 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public From: Craig Franck Subject: Re: Porting Experiences (was Ada and Pascal etc ) Date: 1997/11/05 Message-ID: <63omr0$put@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 288023750 References: <34557f2b.1934172@news.mindspring.com> <345BB35E.4488@dynamite.com.au> <63ftj9$r9g@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net> <345E3ACD.A15@gsg.eds.com> <63mcmm$r3s$1@helios.crest.nt.com> <345F95D0.3984@gsg.eds.com> Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++ Date: 1997-11-05T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" wrote: >Kaz Kylheku wrote: >> >> That depends on how you look at it. I'd say that it requires a little >> more thought and skill to write portably with types that have sizes >> that are not fully specified, but it's not impossible. >> >> C gives you a header, , which gives you the constants LONG_MIN >> and LONG_MAX. These tell you what the implementation's least and >> greatest values of type long are. These values are guaranteed to be >> at least -2^31+1 and 2^31-1 respectively. >> >> If you assume that the long type has a range that is no larger than this, >> you are OK. If you write your code under the assumption that the >> range is LONG_MIN to LONG_MAX, you are also OK. >Unless and until the new standard passes, this aspect of >C will remain a serious blot on the claims of portability. C is no less portable because of this. You may have a case if you state that, perhaps, in this particular aspect of constructing portable programs, Ada is more efficient. You can define your basic types and have the compiler figure it all out. That may make for more optimal code generation. But optimal code generation is not the main goal of portable software. If the code runs half as fast as a native assembler coded routine done by some asm guru whose been pounding away at it for a week, you should be happy with your tools. -- Craig clfranck@worldnet.att.net Manchester, NH I try to take one day at a time, but sometimes several days attack me at once. -- Ashleigh Brilliant