18 Dec
2002
18 Dec
'02
7:13 p.m.
On 18 Dec 2002 at 12:45, J. David Bryan wrote:
According to the GPC manual, "Integer" (for example) does not give me that guarantee, whereas "Integer (32)" does.
I should perhaps emphasize that the important point is the size guarantee, not the "Integer (n)" syntax. If "packed -128..127" guaranteed an eight- bit allocation, then:
type int8 = packed -128..127;
...would be a completely reasonable substitution for "Integer (8)".
(Plain "Integer" offers a guarantee too -- a guarantee of GNU C compatibility -- but that is not the guarantee needed for third-party interfacing, which is a guarantee of a specific size. See:
http://www.gnu-pascal.de/gpc_86.html#SEC86
for reference.)
-- Dave