> 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/