Re: C99 types VS Linus types

[Matthias Andree <matthias.andree@gmx.de>]

On Sun, 06 Jul 2003, Albert Cahalan wrote:

> Sure, both are "correct", but there would be a lot less
> pain and suffering in the world if "unsigned long long"
> would be used for 64-bit.

What if unsigned long long is 96 bit? or 128?

> It ought to be at least 40 years
> before 128-bit types begin to matter.

Yup, and 8-Bit CPU and 640 kB RAM ought to be enough for...

nevermind.

> In the Linux world,
> we can consider "long long" to be 64-bit, "int" to be
> 32-bit, and "long" to be the same size as a pointer.

> Then we can ditch the nasty casts:
> sprintf(foo, "%llu", (unsigned long long)bar);

Speaking of shifting forward to standards:

unsigned char foo = 42;
char bar[42];
sprintf(bar, "%ju", (uintmax_t)foo); // see IEEE Std 1003.1-2001

If that's too ugly, write your own [u]intmax_t-to-char[] converter, then
only the stack is nasty if uintmax_t is 128 bits wide and you're
printing an array uint8_t. :-P

-- 
Matthias Andree