int32 et al.

[Chin Fang]

In article <1991Jan22.175900.24941 at odi.com> benson at odi.com (Benson I. Margulies) writes:
>In article <1991Jan22.023844.29849 at dirtydog.ima.isc.com> karl at ima.isc.com (Karl Heuer) writes:
>>In article <1991Jan21.135216.23447 at odi.com> benson at odi.com (Benson I. Margulies) writes:
[stuff deleted]..
>
>
>I'm concerned, at the instant, with precisely three machines:
>
>machine		int 		long		size_t		int32
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>sun et. al.	32		32		int		int
>PC		16		32		long		long
>RS/6000		32		32		unsigned long	long
>
I hope my opinion is not a fussy one.  I often see people mention PC like 
the example above in this news group.  I run UNIX System V/386 on my i386
box (a PC?) and definietly ints are 32 bits too.  Please don't mix MSDOS
imposed constraint on i386 and the superb i486 chip with what they can do
with a different OS!  Unless you are stuck with 8086/80286, then the above
example is incorrect, and even UNIX can't magically transform an aweful chip
into a better one.  Please say in MODOS, int is 16.  Programming is a 
precise exercise, do we need to be more precise in what we mean?  
 
Regards,
 
Chin Fang
Mechanical Engineering Department
Stanford University
fangchin at portia.stanford.edu

ps. you want a proof?  here are a few lines from my /usr/include/limits.h
 
#define INT_MAX     2147483647   /* max decimal value of an "int" */
#define INT_MIN     -2147483648  /* min decimal value of an "int" */
#define LING_MAX    2147483647L  /* max decimal value of a "long" */
......