Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: What integer C type to use (was: Cray style vectors)
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 07:54:07 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <86le6osttc.fsf@linuxsc.com>
References: <upq0cr$6b5m$1@dont-email.me> <dd9c82c9be34460dc6fea35c8608e51d@www.novabbs.org> <2024Feb20.083240@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <2024Feb20.130029@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <ur2jpf$2j800$1@dont-email.me> <gq4BN.90773$Sf59.78868@fx48.iad> <2024Feb20.192740@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <HQ6BN.120060$STLe.3128@fx34.iad> <2024Feb20.225455@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <29aBN.495740$83n7.231444@fx18.iad> <2024Feb24.232901@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <865xydunqe.fsf@linuxsc.com> <7cMCN.460726$xHn7.297953@fx14.iad>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9d23253f7ade536449cb5f50b3111ee8";
	logging-data="3859255"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+yKaXFyjJ6mLKUkohxifcs5miEaqYAZQI="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:KfLTMj5ZVFruirTnnpjjc1AKAd4=
	sha1:fqIlleooWFxok0l585ZPiphomvc=
Bytes: 2748

scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:

> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
>
>> anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) writes:
>>
>>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>>>
>>>> anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) writes:
>>>>
>>>>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The Unix code ported relatively easily to I32LP64 because
>>>>>> uintptr_t had been used extensively rather than assumptions
>>>>>> about
>>>>>> sizeof(int) == sizeof(int *).
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> Sorry, I meant ptrdiff_t, which was used for pointer math.
>>>
>>> I have seen little code that uses ptrdiff_t;  quite a bit that
>>> used size_t (the unsigned brother of ptrdiff_t).  But my memory
>>> tells me that even size_t was not very widespread in 1995.
>>
>> In 1995 a problem with both size_t and ptrdiff_t is that there
>
> Calling it a "problem" is overstating the case.  It was
> straightforward enough, if not completely portable to
> use the appropriate number of 'l' modifiers.

Whether it is called a problem or not, the lack of support from
printf() was mentioned upthread (by OP?), and that's why I pointed it
out.  The point is that not having the appropriate length modifiers
in C90 makes the code clumsy and the coding inconvenient.  Focusing
on what word is used is a red herring.