Portable integer type which can hold int, wchar_t, and void *

[JesusWaffle]

I'm trying to portably define a type which is wide enough to hold an
int, a wchar_t, or a void *. Here's what I've got:

#include <stdint.h>
#include <wchar.h>
#include <limits.h>

#if INT_MAX > INT32_MAX || WCHAR_MAX > INT32_MAX || \
INTPTR_MAX > INT32_MAX
typedef int64_t funky_type;
#elif INT_MAX > INT16_MAX || WCHAR_MAX > INT16_MAX || \
INTPTR_MAX > INT16_MAX
typedef int32_t funky_type;
#else
typedef int16_t funky_type;
#endif

There seem to be a lot of language lawyers here, so: are there any
corner cases that my definition misses? Will it be wide enough in all
cases? Are there any simplifications I could make?

[Ben Pfaff]

"Je*********@gmail.com" <Je*********@gmail.com> writes:

I'm trying to portably define a type which is wide enough to hold an
int, a wchar_t, or a void *. Here's what I've got:

#include <stdint.h>
#include <wchar.h>
#include <limits.h>

#if INT_MAX > INT32_MAX || WCHAR_MAX > INT32_MAX || \
INTPTR_MAX > INT32_MAX
typedef int64_t funky_type;
#elif INT_MAX > INT16_MAX || WCHAR_MAX > INT16_MAX || \
INTPTR_MAX > INT16_MAX
typedef int32_t funky_type;
#else
typedef int16_t funky_type;
#endif

I have to say that I don't understand your logic here. Here is
what occurs to me at first:

#define MAX(A, B) ((A) > (B) ? (A) : (B))
#define MAX3(A, B, C) (MAX(A, MAX(B, C)))

#if MAX3(INT_MAX, WCHAR_MAX, INTPTR_MAX) == INT_MAX
typedef int funky_type;
#elif MAX3(INT_MAX, WCHAR_MAX, INTPTR_MAX) == WCHAR_MAX
typedef wchar_t funky_type;
#else /* MAX3(INT_MAX, WCHAR_MAX, INTPTR_MAX) == INTPTR_MAX */
typedef intptr_t funky_type;
#endif

I don't understand the desire to tie funky_type to an int<N>_t
type.
--
"I'm not here to convince idiots not to be stupid.
They won't listen anyway."
--Dann Corbit

[Keith Thompson]

"Je*********@gmail.com" <Je*********@gmail.com> writes:

I'm trying to portably define a type which is wide enough to hold an
int, a wchar_t, or a void *.

union funky_type {
int i;
wchar_t w;
void *p;
};

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.

[Tomás]

Je*********@gmail.com posted:

I'm trying to portably define a type which is wide enough to hold...

An unsigned long long has enough value representation bits to store the
value of an "int" or a "wchar_t".

As for "void*", there's no such guarantee. However, "unsigned long long"
will work 90% of the time.
-Tomás