What Defins the "C" Language?

[Randy Yates]

In Harbison and Steele's text (fourth edition, p.111)
it is stated,

The C language does not specify the range of integers that the
integral types will represent, except ot say that type int may not
be smaller than short and long may not be smaller than int.

They go on to say,

Many implementations represent characters in 8 bits, type short in
16 bits, and type long in 32 bits, with type int using either 16 or
32 bits depending on the implementation. ISO C requires
implementations to use at least these widths.

If the C language is not defined by ISO C, then what defines it?
--
Randy Yates
Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications
Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
ra*********@son yericsson.com, 919-472-1124

[Alex Fraser]

"Randy Yates" <ra*********@so nyericsson.com> wrote in message
news:xx******** *****@usrts005. corpusers.net.. .

In Harbison and Steele's text (fourth edition, p.111)
it is stated,

The C language does not specify the range of integers that the
integral types will represent, except ot say that type int may not
be smaller than short and long may not be smaller than int.

They go on to say,

Many implementations represent characters in 8 bits, type short in
16 bits, and type long in 32 bits, with type int using either 16 or
32 bits depending on the implementation. ISO C requires
implementations to use at least these widths.

If the C language is not defined by ISO C, then what defines it?

There are requirements for conforming implementations , specified in ISO
standard documents, such as those you quote above. There is some leeway in
these requirements, as illustrated above, presumably to allow appropriate
choices to be made when creating an implementation for some specific
platform.

What is in the quotes that makes you think it is not defined by ISO C?

Alex

[Nils O. Selåsdal]

Alex Fraser wrote:

"Randy Yates" <ra*********@so nyericsson.com> wrote in message
news:xx******** *****@usrts005. corpusers.net.. .

In Harbison and Steele's text (fourth edition, p.111)
it is stated,

The C language does not specify the range of integers that the
integral types will represent, except ot say that type int may not
be smaller than short and long may not be smaller than int.

They go on to say,

Many implementations represent characters in 8 bits, type short in
16 bits, and type long in 32 bits, with type int using either 16 or
32 bits depending on the implementation. ISO C requires
implementations to use at least these widths.

If the C language is not defined by ISO C, then what defines it?

There are requirements for conforming implementations , specified in ISO
standard documents, such as those you quote above. There is some leeway in
these requirements, as illustrated above, presumably to allow appropriate
choices to be made when creating an implementation for some specific
platform.

What is in the quotes that makes you think it is not defined by ISO C?

Looks to me like he's asking if ISO doesn't define this'n'that(int eger
sizes etc.) Who does for a given arch/compiler ?

--
Nils O. Selåsdal
www.utelsystems.com

[Randy Yates]

"Nils O. Selåsdal" <NO*@Utel.no> writes:

Alex Fraser wrote:

"Randy Yates" <ra*********@so nyericsson.com> wrote in message
news:xx******** *****@usrts005. corpusers.net.. .

In Harbison and Steele's text (fourth edition, p.111)
it is stated,

The C language does not specify the range of integers that the
integral types will represent, except ot say that type int may not
be smaller than short and long may not be smaller than int.

They go on to say,

Many implementations represent characters in 8 bits, type short in
16 bits, and type long in 32 bits, with type int using either 16 or
32 bits depending on the implementation. ISO C requires
implementations to use at least these widths.

If the C language is not defined by ISO C, then what defines it?

There are requirements for conforming implementations , specified in
ISO

standard documents, such as those you quote above. There is some leeway in
these requirements, as illustrated above, presumably to allow appropriate
choices to be made when creating an implementation for some specific
platform.
What is in the quotes that makes you think it is not defined by ISO
C?

Looks to me like he's asking if ISO doesn't define this'n'that(int eger
sizes etc.) Who does for a given arch/compiler ?

Prexactly. :)

I seem to recall conversations in years past of old machines that
had strange integer sizes (9 bits?) which C would support. Am I
delusional?
--
Randy Yates
Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications
Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
ra*********@son yericsson.com, 919-472-1124

[Merrill & Michele]

"Randy Yates"

"Nils O. Selåsdal" <NO*@Utel.no>

Alex Fraser wrote:
> "Randy Yates"
>In Harbison and Steele's text (fourth edition, p.111) [implementation of integer stuff] What is in the quotes that makes you think it is not defined by ISO
C?

Looks to me like he's asking if ISO doesn't define this'n'that(int eger
sizes etc.) Who does for a given arch/compiler ?

Prexactly. :)

I seem to recall conversations in years past of old machines that
had strange integer sizes (9 bits?) which C would support. Am I
delusional?

You are delusional if you think that the assiduous study of H&S won't reveal
a rich, flexible language that uses the ANSI/ISO standard as a bulwark. MPJ

[Michael Mair]

Merrill & Michele wrote:

"Randy Yates"

"Nils O. Selåsdal" <NO*@Utel.no>

Alex Fraser wrote:

>"Randy Yates"
>In Harbison and Steele's text (fourth edition, p.111)
[implementation of integer stuff]
What is in the quotes that makes you think it is not defined by ISO
C?

Looks to me like he's asking if ISO doesn't define this'n'that(int eger
sizes etc.) Who does for a given arch/compiler ?
Prexactly. :)

I seem to recall conversations in years past of old machines that
had strange integer sizes (9 bits?) which C would support. Am I
delusional?

The standard demands CHAR_BIT>=8 which gives you no problem with
9-bit-bytes. Furthermore, the effective range of signed int/unsigned int
according to the standard is that of a 16 bit number (but for INT_MIN),
so sizeof(int)*CHA R_BIT==18 (or 32, nowadays) gives you no problem,
either. The same for 36-bit-longs.
IMO, H&S have that right. Or did I misunderstand your question, too?

BTW: The good old machines with 6 bits to a byte probably do not
have any C implementations to speak of (... I wait to be contradicted).
You are delusional if you think that the assiduous study of H&S won't reveal
a rich, flexible language that uses the ANSI/ISO standard as a bulwark. MPJ

Your point was... ? Do you want to encourage/contradict/... the OP?
Cheers
Michael
--
E-Mail: Mine is an /at/ gmx /dot/ de address.

[Goran Larsson]

In article <xx************ *@usrts005.corp users.net>,
Randy Yates <ra*********@so nyericsson.com> wrote:

I seem to recall conversations in years past of old machines that
had strange integer sizes (9 bits?) which C would support. Am I
delusional?

Nine bits are not enough for the required ranges of integer types
such as short, int and long. It is, however, a perfectly valid
size for a byte, i.e. a char, unsigend char or signed char, in C.
A nine bit byte is only a strange size for people that view the
world through a PC.

--
Göran Larsson http://www.mitt-eget.com/

[Randy Yates]

ho*@invalid.inv alid (Goran Larsson) writes:

In article <xx************ *@usrts005.corp users.net>,
Randy Yates <ra*********@so nyericsson.com> wrote:

I seem to recall conversations in years past of old machines that
had strange integer sizes (9 bits?) which C would support. Am I
delusional?

Nine bits are not enough for the required ranges of integer types
such as short, int and long.

What ranges are those? Where are they specified? This statement contradicts
H&S: "The C language does not specify the range of integers that the
integral types will represent...".
--
Randy Yates
Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications
Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
ra*********@son yericsson.com, 919-472-1124

[dandelion]

"Randy Yates" <ra*********@so nyericsson.com> wrote in message
news:xx******** *****@usrts005. corpusers.net.. .

"Nils O. Selåsdal" <NO*@Utel.no> writes: Prexactly. :)

I seem to recall conversations in years past of old machines that
had strange integer sizes (9 bits?) which C would support. Am I
delusional?
Back in the Bad Old Days (tm) of bitslicers any number of bits was posible.
I recall a conversation with an "old pro" who told me about 47-bits
computers.
--
Randy Yates
Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications
Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
ra*********@son yericsson.com, 919-472-1124

[Merrill & Michele]

"Michael Mair"

Merrill & Michele wrote:

"Randy Yates"
"Nils O. Selåsdal" <NO*@Utel.no>

>Alex Fraser wrote:
>
>>"Randy Yates"
>>In Harbison and Steele's text (fourth edition, p.111)
[implementation of integer stuff]

>What is in the quotes that makes you think it is not defined by ISO
>C?

Looks to me like he's asking if ISO doesn't define this'n'that(int eger
sizes etc.) Who does for a given arch/compiler ?

Prexactly. :)

I seem to recall conversations in years past of old machines that
had strange integer sizes (9 bits?) which C would support. Am I
delusional?
The standard demands CHAR_BIT>=8 which gives you no problem with
9-bit-bytes. Furthermore, the effective range of signed int/unsigned int
according to the standard is that of a 16 bit number (but for INT_MIN),
so sizeof(int)*CHA R_BIT==18 (or 32, nowadays) gives you no problem,
either. The same for 36-bit-longs.
IMO, H&S have that right. Or did I misunderstand your question, too?

BTW: The good old machines with 6 bits to a byte probably do not
have any C implementations to speak of (... I wait to be contradicted).

You are delusional if you think that the assiduous study of H&S won't

reveal a rich, flexible language that uses the ANSI/ISO standard as a bulwark.

MPJ
Your point was... ? Do you want to encourage/contradict/... the OP?

The sentence stands by itself. The OP had internal contradiction. Motives
are OT. MPJ