Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > I really am glad they haven't. I think it's super-annoying that we > need hacks like UINT64_FORMAT all over the place. I think it was a > mistake not to nail down the size that each type is expected to be in > the original C standard,
Well, mumble. One must remember that when C was designed, there was a LOT more variability in hardware designs than we see today. They could not have put a language with fixed ideas about datatype widths onto, say, PDP-10s (36-bit words) or Crays (60-bit, IIRC). But it is a darn shame that people weren't more consistent about mapping the C types onto machines with S/360-like addressing. > and making more changes to the conventions > now would cause a whole bunch of unnecessary code churn, probably for > almost everybody using C. The error in your thinking is believing that there *is* a convention. There isn't; see "long". Anyway, my point is that we have created a set of type names that have the semantics we want, and we should avoid confusing those with underlying C types that are *not* guaranteed to be the same thing. regards, tom lane