From: tnp@invalid.invalid   
      
   On 01/09/2024 11:53, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:   
   > On Sun, 1 Sep 2024 11:07:17 +0100   
   > mm0fmf  wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 01/09/2024 08:50, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:   
   >>> On Thu, 29 Aug 2024 21:33:28 +0100, druck wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> Yes stdint.h is your friend   
   >>>   
   >>> Unless you have an elderly code base that still hasn’t caught up with   
   >>> C99 ...   
   >>   
   >> Or you were programming in C on an Analog Devices SHARC were char was 32   
   >> bits.   
   >   
   > 	I'll bet that broke a lot of bad code :)   
   >   
   > 	Stll even in that environment a compliant compiler should still   
   > provide int_t types. They'd probably have to have horrendously   
   > inefficient implementations not dissimilar to the bitfields in structs but   
   > they should exist. Woe betide anyone who thought they could put a char into   
   > an int16_t safely though.   
   >   
      
   Ah yes. I was cross compiling C for a 6809 (on a PDP/11) when I   
   discovered that to do anything with a char it was promoted into a 16 bit   
   int, which on an 8 bit microprocessor results in a shit load of code.   
      
   Needless to say there ended up being a lot of #asm statements..   
      
   --   
   Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as   
   foolish, and by the rulers as useful.   
      
   (Seneca the Younger, 65 AD)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)