Thou shalt have no other gods before the ANSI C standard 1668

On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 06:14:22 +0000 (UTC) in alt.folklore.computers, "D.

The obvious fix *now* is to use something larger than 32 bits: it wasn't obvious ten years ago.

At least 64 bit counters.

In how many programs is that actually a *requirement*? IMHO very few. Exact length types are intended for external interfaces, other types should be used within the program.

Any artificial restriction is also a potential defect: unless you are dealing with a subrange, you want a type that will handle at least a certain number of bits, but you don't really care (and it could be a benefit) if it also handles a lot more.

Overspecifying the range supported also leads to defects, especially when the programmer underestimates what the program may be required to deal with. Most professionals seem to concur that the C99 intleast*t types are likely to be the most used within code, except where specific interfaces are required, or speed is a consideration.

Sure, being able to tally up 16 exabytes seems a lot now, but I can ship 100MB-s on a home GbE LAN and put 1.6TB in my current home desktop, give it five years and *drives* in the low TB will be on the desktop.

-- Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada

fake address use address above to reply