Lpc2000

> That is wrong.  The C standard requires that the following 
equality and
> inequalities hold:
> 
> 1 = sizeof(char)
> 
> sizeof(char) <= sizeof(short) <= sizeof(int) <= sizeof(long) <=
> sizeof(long long)
> 

As I understood the debate, the C99 spec has changed the inequality 
to strictly <  not <= so there had to be a difference in size 
between the various types.  But this may not be correct...


From the C99 standard section 6.3.1.1:

6.3.1.1 Boolean, characters, and integers
1 Every integer type has an integer conversion rank defined as 
follows:

— No two signed integer types shall have the same rank, even if they 
have the same representation.

— The rank of a signed integer type shall be greater than the rank 
of any signed integer type with less precision.

— The rank of long long int shall be greater than the rank of long 
int, which shall be greater than the rank of int, which shall be 
greater than the rank of short int, which shall be greater than the 
rank of signed char.

— The rank of any unsigned integer type shall equal the rank of the 
corresponding signed integer type, if any.

But, I think the real answer is in section 7.18 where the standard 
deals with <stdint.h> and defines macros that represent specific 
widths.  I think I need to read this a little more carefully.

Then there is the matter of which standard applies; '99 or something 
earlier.  Oh, and whether the compiler in question even claims 
standard compliance.  Some don't...

Richard