On Apr 7 09:39, Eric Blake wrote: > On 04/07/2014 08:42 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > On Apr 7 08:16, Eric Blake wrote: > >> On 04/07/2014 02:47 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> There's no standard which restricts the sizes of the datatypes in > >>> that way. There's only this rule to follow: > >>> > >>> sizeof (char) <= sizeof (short) <= sizeof (int) <= sizeof (long) > >> > >> Well, there IS the C rule that sizeof(char)==1, and also that char holds > >>> = 8 bits, short holds >= 8 bits, int holds >= 16 bits, long holds >= 32 > >> bits. There is also a POSIX rule that CHAR_BITS==8 (so while C allows a > >> 9-bit or 32-bit char [and yes, such machines exist, although rare], > >> POSIX does not allow that). > > > > Apart from POSIX, where is that defined? > > C99 5.2.4.2.1 Sizes of integer types <limits.h> > > requires CHAR_BIT to be 8 or larger, UCHAR_MAX to be 255 or larger, > USHRT_MAX to be 65535 or larger (oh, so I was wrong above; 8-bit short > is not allowed), UINT_MAX to be 65535 or larger, ULONG_MAX to be > 4294967295 or larger, and ULLONG_MAX to be 18446744073709551615 or larger.
C99 actually requires that? Wow. Modern times... > > Xstormy16? > > Okay, so maybe 16-bit machines aren't all museum pieces - but they also > aren't portability targets for the majority of programs run on cygwin :) Probably not, but I don't know a Cygwin application to control a washing machine either :) Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat
pgp7kLSZCVf5z.pgp
Description: PGP signature
