| Author |
Message |
|
Tom St Deni
#1 / 8
|
 "long long" C99 question Does "unsigned long long" mean a unsigned data type of at least 64 bits in
C99?
[simple question, answer yes or no, no lengthly flame wars please!]
Thanks,
Tom
|
| Sat, 26 Jun 2004 09:57:16 GMT |
|
 |
|
Simon Bibe
#2 / 8
|
"long long" C99 question
Quote: > Does "unsigned long long" mean a unsigned data type
> of at least 64 bits in C99?
Yes.
Quote: > [simple question, answer yes or no, no lengthly
> flame wars please!]
C99 5.2.4.2.1 Sizes of integer types:
...
Their implementation-defined values shall be equal or greater in magnitude
(absolute value) to those shown, with the same sign.
...
maximum value for an object of type unsigned long long int
ULLONG_MAX 18446744073709551615 // 2^64 - 1
--
Simon.
|
| Sat, 26 Jun 2004 10:38:46 GMT |
|
|
|
Tom St Deni
#3 / 8
|
"long long" C99 question
Quote:
> > Does "unsigned long long" mean a unsigned data type > > of at least 64 bits in C99? > Yes.
> > [simple question, answer yes or no, no lengthly
> > flame wars please!]
> C99 5.2.4.2.1 Sizes of integer types:
> ...
> Their implementation-defined values shall be equal or greater in magnitude
> (absolute value) to those shown, with the same sign.
> ...
> maximum value for an object of type unsigned long long int
> ULLONG_MAX 18446744073709551615 // 2^64 - 1
Thank you.
Tom
|
| Sat, 26 Jun 2004 10:52:09 GMT |
|
|
|
Thomas Pfaf
#4 / 8
|
"long long" C99 question
Quote:
> > > Does "unsigned long long" mean a unsigned data type
> > > of at least 64 bits in C99?
> > Yes.
> > > [simple question, answer yes or no, no lengthly
> > > flame wars please!]
> > C99 5.2.4.2.1 Sizes of integer types:
> > ...
> > Their implementation-defined values shall be equal
> > or greater in magnitude (absolute value) to those
> > shown, with the same sign.
> > ...
> > maximum value for an object of type unsigned long
> > long int
> > ULLONG_MAX 18446744073709551615 // 2^64 - 1
> Thank you.
> Tom
http://anubis.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC22/WG14/www/docs/n869/
|
| Sat, 26 Jun 2004 12:17:38 GMT |
|
|
|
Bill Godfre
#5 / 8
|
"long long" C99 question
Quote: > Does "unsigned long long" mean a unsigned data type of at least 64 bits in
> C99?
At least 64 *value* bits, and zero or more padding bits.
(A long long of 64 bits, ten of which are padding, would not be a
conforming implementation.)
Quote: > [simple question, answer yes or no, no lengthly flame wars please!]
Bill, Mu.
|
| Sat, 26 Jun 2004 16:51:11 GMT |
|
|
|
Tom St Deni
#6 / 8
|
"long long" C99 question
Quote: > You can get a copy of the last (?) C99 draft here: > http://anubis.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC22/WG14/www/docs/n869/
Tom
|
| Sat, 26 Jun 2004 19:41:16 GMT |
|
|
|
Tom St Deni
#7 / 8
|
"long long" C99 question
Quote:
> > Does "unsigned long long" mean a unsigned data type of at least 64 bits
in
> > C99?
> At least 64 *value* bits, and zero or more padding bits.
> (A long long of 64 bits, ten of which are padding, would not be a
> conforming implementation.)
That's what I meant though.... Typically when I mention a type "of n-bits" I
don't mean to say "n-bits, n-k-bits of which are padding".
Just like when I say a 192-bit ECC key I don't mean 64-bits of random values
in the multiplicand and 128 fixed values of padding...
Tom
|
| Sat, 26 Jun 2004 19:42:27 GMT |
|
|
|
Lawrence Kir
#8 / 8
|
"long long" C99 question On Tuesday, in article
Quote:
>> > Does "unsigned long long" mean a unsigned data type of at least 64 bits
>in
>> > C99?
>> At least 64 *value* bits, and zero or more padding bits.
>> (A long long of 64 bits, ten of which are padding, would not be a
>> conforming implementation.)
>That's what I meant though.... Typically when I mention a type "of n-bits" I
>don't mean to say "n-bits, n-k-bits of which are padding".
>Just like when I say a 192-bit ECC key I don't mean 64-bits of random values
>in the multiplicand and 128 fixed values of padding...
However padding is part of the definition of C types. It is not, AFAIK,
part of the definition of ECC keys.
--
-----------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------
|
| Thu, 01 Jul 2004 22:17:48 GMT |
|
| |
