Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 16 Feb 1999 09:16:38 -0600 (EST) | From | Bob McElrath <> | Subject | Re: Q: void* vs. unsigned long |
| |
On 16 Feb 1999, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> 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.
I reference you all to /usr/include/asm/types.h, for those that *really* care about how many bits are in each respective type. Why guess about the target architectures when you can check?
-- Bob
Bob McElrath (rsmcelrath@students.wisc.edu) Univ. of Wisconsin at Madison
- 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/
| |