Re: ****tability: Harmony between PC and microcontroller

"Bartc" <bc@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
> "Tomás Ó hÉilidhe" <toe@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
> news:582c24fa-1cc4-49f0-8ca7-171928a1a38e@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> I'll try to summarise this as best I can, as my last thread wasn't
>> very to-the-point:
>>
>> The C Standard says the following two things:
>>
>> * int is the natural integer type for the system.
>> * int must be at least 16-Bit.
>>
>> Now the problem here is that these two criteria conflict if the
>> natural type for the system is in fact 8-Bit, which is the case with
>> many microcontrollers today.
[...]
>
> It doesn't seem an insurmountable problem.
>
> If you want a default int size that is best for your cpu, try something 
> like:
>
> typedef unsigned char uint;      /* Or uint_fast8_t etc. */
> typedef signed char sint;
>
> Then use uint and sint everywhere in place of unsigned/signed int.
>
> When moving to a bigger processor, you need to change those two lines or
use 
> some conditional compilation tricks.

*Please* don't call them "uint" and "sint".

What the name "uint" says to me is "unsigned int, but I care more
about saving a few keystrokes than writing clear code"; likewise for
"sint".  The only thing worse than typedef'ing "unsigned int" to
"uint" is typedef'ing something else to "uint".  I understand that
"uint" is intended to convey "unsigned integer" rather than "unsigned
int", but that's not how it comes across.

If you want to call them, say, "small_signed" and "small_unsigned",
that's fine.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <kst-u@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Nokia
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"