Messages in this thread | | | From | (H. Peter Anvin) | Subject | Re: Q: void* vs. unsigned long | Date | 16 Feb 1999 12:36:27 GMT |
| |
Followup to: <m10Cjto-0007U1C@the-village.bc.nu> By author: alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk (Alan Cox) In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel > > > > Interesting, so this tells that: > > > > rank(long long int) > rank(long int) > rank(int) > rank(short int) > rank(char) > > > > While following was the previous definition: > > > > rank(long long int) >= rank(long int) >= rank(int) >= rank(short int) >= rank(char) > > If that definition has been changed the C9X committee are broken. On X86 > for example short=long in size. Anyone who expects all the compilers to > change their object sizes is to say the least misguided >
That's not what it says. The original poster confused rank (promotion order) with size.
-hpa -- "Linux is a very complete and sophisticated operating system. There are, and will be, large numbers of applications available for it." -- Paul Maritz, Group Vice President for Platforms And Applications, Microsoft Corporation [Reference at: http://www.kernel.org/~hpa/ms.html]
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |