2 Jul
2012
2 Jul
'12
5:09 p.m.
-----Original Message-----
From: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org
[mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Dave McGuire
Sent: 03 July 2012 01:01
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: SPI and I2C, was Re: Raspberry Pi and America,
On 07/02/2012 07:42 PM, schoedel at kw.igs.net wrote:
bits and int
I think thats very true for your environment, but most mortals are woking in
areas where 64-but computing is becoming prevelant and we may get caught,
although at present things seem to have been done sensibly...
> On every platform I work on, and indeed every
platform I've
> *ever* worked on, unsigned short has been 16 bits, and
unsigned int
has been
32.
I own one where int is 16 bits, have worked on a compiler for one
where int is 24 bits, and have used one where short is 32 64. There is reason for the Tenth Commandment.
Yes, so have I. But I'm a commercial embedded systems
developer (one who generally doesn't use DSPs!), and I don't
work on any of "those" platforms. Literally EVERYTHING I USE
has 32-bit ints and 16-bit shorts, and that has been the case
for upwards of thirty years. From my point of view here, I
see absolutely no reason to add a level of indirection to the
native compiler data type when it gives me (ME) no benefit.
This has got to be the most corner-case-obsessed
group of
people I have ever met. ;) (don't get me wrong, I find it fun!)
I think so long as you understand the risks its OK. Again many don't
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA