2 Jul
2012
2 Jul
'12
5 p.m.
On 07/02/2012 07:42 PM, schoedel at kw.igs.net wrote:
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!)
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA
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 bits and int 64. There is reason
for the Tenth Commandment.