John Emmas wrote on 31 October 2008 15:35:
> is it reasonable for a programmer to assume that a type declared as
> int32_t will be compatible with "%d" when building for a 32-bit platform?
The /only/ assumptions you may legitimately make are those encoded in the C
language spec: sizeof (char) <= sizeof (short) <= sizeof (int) <= sizeof
(long) <= sizeof (long long). But "<=" means less than OR equal, and you
can't assume /which/ of those two.
> I'd be surprised if there's a programmer amongst us who can honestly say
> he wouldn't have made that assumption.
It's worked in the past. But now there are 64-bit platforms in common use
and we all have to be aware.
cheers,
DaveK
--
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
