3 ms·

yep, i remember when i tried coding for some atmega, i was wondering "how big are int and uint?" and wanted the types names to always include the size like uint

yep, i remember when i tried coding for some atmega, i was wondering "how big are int and uint?" and wanted the types names to always include the size like uint8. but also there is char type, which should become char8 which looks even more crazy.

kazinator 1y ago
Would you want the main function to be: int32_t main(int32_t argc, char **argv)? How about struct tm? struct tm {$ int32_t tm_sec; /* Seconds (0-60) */$ int32_t tm_min; /* Minutes (0-59) */$ int32_t tm_hour; /* Hours (0-23) */$ int32_t tm_mday; /* Day of the month (1-31) */$ int32_t tm_mon; /* Month (0-11) */$ int32_t tm_year; /* Year - 1900 */$ int32_t tm_wday; /* Day of the week (0-6, Sunday = 0) */$ int32_t tm_yday; /* Day in the year (0-365, 1 Jan = 0) */$ int32_t tm_isdst; /* Daylight saving time */$ }; What for? Or do we "shrink wrap" every field to the smallest type? "uint8_t tm_hour"?
- zozbot234 1y ago
  You'd define architecture-specific typedefs to deal with these cases in a portable way. The C standard already has types like int_fast8_t that are similar in principle.
  - kazinator 1y ago
    See, why would you need an "architecture specific typedef" in order to represent the day of the month, or the number of arguments in main "in a portable way". int does it in a portable way already. It's just muddled thinking.
    - zozbot234 1y ago
      int is architecture specific too, and it's been "muddled" plenty due to backward compatibility concerns. Using typedefs throughout would be a cleaner choice if we were starting from scratch.