bugIntroducedDebugging

[u/ClipboardCopyPaste]

[u/bloody-albatross]

You're still on 32 bit? Are you doing a lot of embedded stuff?

Edit: I misread and thought they where referring to the pointer size.

[u/AdBrave2400 → u/bloody-albatross]

Isn't int 32-bit on most platforms and long long int is 64-bit?

[u/bloody-albatross → u/AdBrave2400]

I read it as the size of the pointer being 4 bytes, but now I see you were referring to the int. AFAIK the size of int is specified as "at least" 32 bit in the C standard, and all 32 and 64 bit platforms I know indeed use 32 bit. Though the size of long (not speaking of long long) is different on different 64 bit platforms, IIRC. Windows uses 32 bit and Linux uses 64. Both use 64 for long long. I prefer to use (u)int*_t when I need to be sure about the size and I use int/size_t/time_t/... when I interface with functions that use those in their signature.

[u/MattieShoes → u/bloody-albatross]

AFAIK the size of int is specified as "at least" 32 bit in the C standard

I believe it's 16 bit, though you're not likely to encounter a 16 bit int today unless it's a microcontroller or something.

[u/SeriousPlankton2000 → u/MattieShoes]

Yes, long is 32 bit. A long long time ago we didn't need long long yet. I can still remember.

[u/MattieShoes → u/SeriousPlankton2000]

And now there's __int_128t __int128_t, at least in gcc. :-)

So probably -170,141,183,460,469,231,731,687,303,715,884,105,728 to 170,141,183,460,469,231,731,687,303,715,884,105,727

That's what... undecillions?

[u/bloody-albatross → u/MattieShoes]

_ slipped, it's __int128_t :D

[u/MattieShoes → u/bloody-albatross]

... you wrote the same thing? Yes two underscores at the start, but I wrote two underscores?

[u/bloody-albatross → u/MattieShoes]

You wrote __int_128t, I wrote __int128_t. These typos happen to me too.

[u/MattieShoes → u/bloody-albatross]

Oh son of a bitch, my bad! I was going from memory. fixed.