Re: Pointers to "why C behaves like that ?"

"Nick Maclaren" <nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk>
3 Dec 2002 00:40:01 -0500

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
[56 earlier articles]
Re: Pointers to "why C behaves like that ?" fjh@students.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fergus Henderson) (2002-12-01)
Re: Pointers to "why C behaves like that ?" thp@cs.ucr.edu (2002-12-01)
Re: Pointers to "why C behaves like that ?" dot@dotat.at (Tony Finch) (2002-12-01)
Re: Pointers to "why C behaves like that ?" dot@dotat.at (Tony Finch) (2002-12-01)
Re: Pointers to "why C behaves like that ?" sander@haldjas.folklore.ee (Sander Vesik) (2002-12-01)
Re: Pointers to "why C behaves like that ?" fjh@students.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fergus Henderson) (2002-12-03)
Re: Pointers to "why C behaves like that ?" nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) (2002-12-03)
Re: Pointers to "why C behaves like that ?" joachim_d@gmx.de (Joachim Durchholz) (2002-12-03)
Re: Pointers to "why C behaves like that ?" vugluskr@unicorn.math.spbu.ru (Roman Shaposhnick) (2002-12-07)
Re: Pointers to "why C behaves like that ?" vugluskr@unicorn.math.spbu.ru (Roman Shaposhnick) (2002-12-07)
Re: Pointers to "why C behaves like that ?" lex@cc.gatech.edu (Lex Spoon) (2002-12-11)
Re: Pointers to "why C behaves like that ?" joachim_d@gmx.de (Joachim Durchholz) (2002-12-11)
Re: Pointers to "why C behaves like that ?" marcov@toad.stack.nl (Marco van de Voort) (2002-12-11)
[5 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |
From: "Nick Maclaren" <nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 3 Dec 2002 00:40:01 -0500
Organization: University of Cambridge, England
References: 02-11-095 02-11-103 02-11-128 02-11-150 02-12-026
Keywords: types, practice
Posted-Date: 03 Dec 2002 00:40:01 EST

"Sander Vesik" <sander@haldjas.folklore.ee> writes:
|>
|> C has no character type - it just has a (usually, as such is not
|> guranteed by the standards) ultra-short integer type that is called
|> char. There isn't much special about that type in fact many functions
|> that appear to be character related return or take int arguments
|> instead.
|>
|> sizeof(long) == sizeof(int) == sizeof(short) == sizeof(char) == 64 bits
|> is a valid, standards-conformant (even if slightly odd) choice for
|> a C runtime - and one that has i think been made at least once.


There is a problem here for hosted implementations (i.e. ones that
support the library): the macro EOF. The consensus seems to be that
that choice is permitted only for free-standing (embedded) C
implementations. But it definitely is for them, and I have heard of
such implementations, too.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren,
University of Cambridge Computing Service,
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QH, England.
Email: nmm1@cam.ac.uk
Tel.: +44 1223 334761 Fax: +44 1223 334679


Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.