short or int

[john]

I read in the first question in the FAQ that both
short and int are guaranteed to be able to hold
values up to 32,767.

Then why would one use an int instead of a short
if short takes less space?

[Richard Heathfield]

john said:

I read in the first question in the FAQ that both
short and int are guaranteed to be able to hold
values up to 32,767.

Then why would one use an int instead of a short
if short takes less space?

short is not guaranteed to take less space, though.

short is at least 16 bits wide.
int is at least 16 bits wide.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)

[john]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

john said:

I read in the first question in the FAQ that both
short and int are guaranteed to be able to hold
values up to 32,767.

Then why would one use an int instead of a short
if short takes less space?

short is not guaranteed to take less space, though.

short is at least 16 bits wide.
int is at least 16 bits wide.

Ok, then. But why is there two types if they both
have the same minimum? And why choose int instead of short?

[Chris Hills]

In article <WW************ *******@newsb.t elia.net>, john <[e-mail] >
writes

Richard Heathfield wrote:

john said:

I read in the first question in the FAQ that both
short and int are guaranteed to be able to hold
values up to 32,767.

Then why would one use an int instead of a short
if short takes less space?

short is not guaranteed to take less space, though.

short is at least 16 bits wide.
int is at least 16 bits wide.

Ok, then. But why is there two types if they both
have the same minimum? And why choose int instead of short?

Some machines have 32 bit ints and 8 bit chars so you man want a 16 bit
short.

In fact on any machine where the int is more than 16 bits (32, 64, 128
and others) you may want an integer between the int and char.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys. org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

[pete]

john wrote:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

john said:

I read in the first question in the FAQ that both
short and int are guaranteed to be able to hold
values up to 32,767.

Then why would one use an int instead of a short
if short takes less space?
short is not guaranteed to take less space, though.

short is at least 16 bits wide.
int is at least 16 bits wide.

Ok, then. But why is there two types if they both
have the same minimum?

It gives the compiler an option to have more variety.
short and int may be implemented with the same size and range
or they may be different.
And why choose int instead of short?

Expressions of type short,
get converted to type int in most operations, anyway,
so the meaning of the code is generally simpler
when short types aren't used.

--
pete

[john]

pete wrote:

john wrote:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

john said:

I read in the first question in the FAQ that both
short and int are guaranteed to be able to hold
values up to 32,767.

Then why would one use an int instead of a short
if short takes less space?
short is not guaranteed to take less space, though.

short is at least 16 bits wide.
int is at least 16 bits wide.

Ok, then. But why is there two types if they both
have the same minimum?

It gives the compiler an option to have more variety.
short and int may be implemented with the same size and range
or they may be different.

But if they are different, is it portable to use int
for values greater than 32,767 ?
The FAQ says that a long should be used in that case.

And why choose int instead of short?

Expressions of type short,
get converted to type int in most operations, anyway,
so the meaning of the code is generally simpler
when short types aren't used.

I understand, thanks

[Simon Biber]

john wrote:

I read in the first question in the FAQ that both
short and int are guaranteed to be able to hold
values up to 32,767.

Then why would one use an int instead of a short
if short takes less space?

If your 'int' only holds values up to 32,767, then it is surely the same
type as 'short' on your machine. There is no reason to use one over the
other. However, on most machines, 'int' can hold values over 32,767.

Using an int may be faster than using a short. The type int is designed
to represent the native word size of the computer, where possible.

On many 64-bit computers that is no longer the case. If they made 'int'
64 bits, and 'short' remained 16 bits, then there would be no 32-bit
integer type available. If 'short' moved to 32 bits, then there would be
no 16-bit integer type available. The usual solution is to leave 'char'
as 8 bits, 'short' as 16 bits, and 'int' as 32 bits. Most C
implementations on 64-bit hardware do move 'long' to 64 bits, while I
believe some leave 'long' as 32 bits and continue using 'long long' for
the 64 bit type.

The choice of what type to use when programming in C should usually be
based on what range of values you need to store. If 16 bits are
sufficient, use an 'int', if 32 bits are required, use a 'long', and if
64 bits are required, use a 'long long'.

Simon.

[CBFalconer]

john wrote:

I read in the first question in the FAQ that both
short and int are guaranteed to be able to hold
values up to 32,767.

Then why would one use an int instead of a short
if short takes less space?

Because an int is the type that will produce the optimum code, in
terms of both speed and code space, on that machine. A short *may*
be used to reduce the data space required when it has sufficient
range. This is probably unwise unless you have a great many of
them to store.

--
"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.c om, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson
More details at: <http://cfaj.freeshell. org/google/>
Also see <http://www.safalra.com/special/googlegroupsrep ly/>

[Flash Gordon]

john wrote:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

john said:

I read in the first question in the FAQ that both
short and int are guaranteed to be able to hold
values up to 32,767.

Then why would one use an int instead of a short
if short takes less space?

short is not guaranteed to take less space, though.

short is at least 16 bits wide.
int is at least 16 bits wide.

Ok, then. But why is there two types if they both
have the same minimum? And why choose int instead of short?

The idea of int is that it is the natural integer size of the processor
and so will be faster than short. So you use short if you are trying to
reduce space, but if space is not known to be a problem you use int.
--
Flash Gordon, living in interesting times.
Web site - http://home.flash-gordon.me.uk/
comp.lang.c posting guidelines and intro:
http://clc-wiki.net/wiki/Intro_to_clc

Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php

[Chris Hills]

In article <44************ ***********@new s.optusnet.com. au>, Simon Biber
<ne**@ralmin.cc > writes

john wrote:

I read in the first question in the FAQ that both
short and int are guaranteed to be able to hold
values up to 32,767.

Then why would one use an int instead of a short
if short takes less space?

If your 'int' only holds values up to 32,767, then it is surely the same
type as 'short' on your machine. There is no reason to use one over the
other. However, on most machines, 'int' can hold values over 32,767.

Where do you get that idea. On the vast majority an int is 16 bits.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys. org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/