--- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Paterson" <bruce.paterson@b...> wrote: > > > Texas Instruments 320C40 compiler had a 32-bit char, short, > > int, and long. Yes, it was not a byte-oriented machine and > > much trouble with byte-oriented protocols ensued. > > Or even less obvious the 24bit gnu based C compiler for the Motorola > series of DSP's (5600x), char, short, int and long were all 24 bits. To > make things work properly using the same code on a test PC we had to > ensure int-like variables were forced to be 32bits (rather than 16bits), > so it was lucky it could be all done in one file where my generic types > were defined. > A situation like this does mean you should allow for a type that is the > natural int of the machine as well as the specific types like int32_t. > In most cases you probably don't want a 32bit counter on the PC to be > forced into a double word 48bit on the DSP; for most purposes a 24bit > counter will do. I tend towards some global use types like "COUNTER" and > "INDEX" that I set appropriately in the global types file, as well as > min_no_of_bits types like INT32_T where you really do mean you need > 32bits (or more). > > Cheers, > Bruce > Yes, as I get further into stdint.h I think is will clear up. And, what about portability? On these embedded things portability of the hardware specific code is not going to happen anyway. It's just that my experience has been limited to 8 bit micros for far too long. Richard
Message
Re: unsigned long versus unsigned int on ARM7
2005-11-11 by rtstofer
Attachments
- No local attachments were found for this message.