ints ints ints and ints

Discussion in 'C Programming' started by Skybuck Flying, Jul 8, 2004.

  1. Ok,

    I am getting really sick of all these integers types. Not only in C... but
    mostly in C.

    WHY DOESN'T ANSI MAKE THESE TYPES A STANDARD

    sint8
    uint8

    sint16
    uin16

    sint32
    uint32

    sint64
    uint64

    I am getting really really sick of

    long long int...

    blablabla

    short int blablabla

    That's BULLSHIT :D

    Now at least microsoft has easy stuff:

    __int8
    __int16
    __int32
    __int64

    etc..

    THE SHITTY SHIT IS !!!:

    That when I want to compile the same source code on linux/knoppix the
    system/compiler starts bitching ofcourse that __int8 is unknown etc !

    THAT S WHY I AM GETTING REALLY SICK OF IT :DDDDD

    OFCOURSE I COULD JUST DOWNLOAD SOME SOURCE CODE SIGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

    WITH FRICKING IFDEFS


    #IFDEF WINDOWS THEN

    __INT8 blablabla

    #ENDIF

    #IFDEF LINUX THEN

    INT BLABLABLA


    LOL

    THEN I GET SICK OF IFDEFS

    ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
    zzzz

    ISN"T IT TIME FOR A FRICKING UPDATE LOL ? :)

    By the way.. the same goes for DELPHI, JAVA, AND PROBABLY EVEN THE NEW C#
    not to forget crappy good old C++ ? :)

    ANYWAY

    I have no problems with people wanting a general integer types... Like int
    in c or integer in delphi representing the best or most whatever kind of
    thing that matches the computer architecture.

    That's a good question !

    Why is int in C or integer in Pascal...

    16 bit for 16 bit systems
    32 bit for 32 bit systems
    64 bit for 64 bit systems

    THAT CAN ONLY LEAD TO PROBLEMS !

    The answer is probably SPEED.

    I THINK MOST PROGRAMMERS WILL AGREE WITH THIS STATEMENT:

    CORRECTNESS VS SPEED

    CORRECTNESS PREFAILS !

    MAYBE C programmers DISAGREE WITH THAT ?

    THAT WOULD BE FUNNY.

    ANYWAY since I mentioned DELPHI as WELL.

    I RATHER SEE C AND DELPHI/PASCAL PROGRAMS FUNCTION AND COMPILE CORRECTLY ON
    WHATEVER THE ARCHITECTURE IS !

    THE ONLY WAY TO MAKE SURE IS TO USE INT8, INT16, INT32 etc etc etc.

    THEN LATER !!!!! THE CODE CAN BE OPTIMIZED FOR 64 BIT SYSTEMS ?!? RIGHT ?!?!

    BESIDES FROM THAT IT WOULD BE BETTER TO HAVE 16 BIT, 32 BIT and 64 BIT
    versions of exactly the same source code... but a little bit
    different.... at least that's what I do for little routines... :)

    CAN SOMEBODY EXPLAIN WHY THE INTEGER TYPES IN C AND DELPHI ARE SO FUCKED IP
    ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

    GOD DAMN IT =D

    Bye,
    Skybuck.
    Skybuck Flying, Jul 8, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "Skybuck Flying" <> wrote in
    news:cckdg8$1np$1.nb.home.nl:

    > Ok,
    >
    > I am getting really sick of all these integers types. Not only in C...
    > but mostly in C.
    >
    > WHY DOESN'T ANSI MAKE THESE TYPES A STANDARD
    >
    > sint8
    > uint8
    >
    > sint16
    > uin16
    >
    > sint32
    > uint32
    >
    > sint64
    > uint64
    >
    > I am getting really really sick of
    >
    > long long int...


    They did in C99 (the names are slightly different). Barring a C99
    compiler, you should have long ago created a myBaseTypes.h file and placed
    these typedefs in it. Then, for eache compiler you work with, just include
    myBaseTypes.h and be done with it. You only need to put checks like this
    into the header file and then you'll be sure that you get the bit widths
    you expect (if they are possible):

    /*----------------------------------------------------------------
    ** TYPE S32
    **----------------------------------------------------------------
    */
    #define INT_32_MAX (0x7FFFFFFF)
    #define INT_32_MIN (0xFFFFFFFF)

    #if (SCHAR_MAX == INT_32_MAX)
    typedef signed char S32;
    #elif (SHRT_MAX == INT_32_MAX)
    typedef short int S32;
    #elif (INT_MAX == INT_32_MAX)
    typedef int S32;
    #elif (LONG_MAX == INT_32_MAX)
    typedef long S32;
    #else
    # error "Cannot define type S32."
    #endif
    Mark A. Odell, Jul 8, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Skybuck Flying

    Eric Enright Guest

    Skybuck Flying wrote:
    >CAN SOMEBODY EXPLAIN WHY THE INTEGER TYPES IN C AND DELPHI ARE SO FUCKED IP
    >?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!


    I think thats enough coffee for you today.

    --
    Eric Enright /"\
    ericAtiptsoftDcom \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign
    X Against HTML E-Mail
    Public Key: 0xBEDF636F / \
    Eric Enright, Jul 8, 2004
    #3
  4. "Mark A. Odell" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns9520B1C8493A9CopyrightMarkOdell@130.133.1.4...
    > "Skybuck Flying" <> wrote in
    > news:cckdg8$1np$1.nb.home.nl:
    >
    > > Ok,
    > >
    > > I am getting really sick of all these integers types. Not only in C...
    > > but mostly in C.
    > >
    > > WHY DOESN'T ANSI MAKE THESE TYPES A STANDARD
    > >
    > > sint8
    > > uint8
    > >
    > > sint16
    > > uin16
    > >
    > > sint32
    > > uint32
    > >
    > > sint64
    > > uint64
    > >
    > > I am getting really really sick of
    > >
    > > long long int...

    >
    > They did in C99 (the names are slightly different). Barring a C99
    > compiler, you should have long ago created a myBaseTypes.h file and placed
    > these typedefs in it. Then, for eache compiler you work with, just include
    > myBaseTypes.h and be done with it. You only need to put checks like this
    > into the header file and then you'll be sure that you get the bit widths
    > you expect (if they are possible):
    >
    > /*----------------------------------------------------------------
    > ** TYPE S32
    > **----------------------------------------------------------------
    > */
    > #define INT_32_MAX (0x7FFFFFFF)
    > #define INT_32_MIN (0xFFFFFFFF)
    >
    > #if (SCHAR_MAX == INT_32_MAX)
    > typedef signed char S32;
    > #elif (SHRT_MAX == INT_32_MAX)
    > typedef short int S32;
    > #elif (INT_MAX == INT_32_MAX)
    > typedef int S32;
    > #elif (LONG_MAX == INT_32_MAX)
    > typedef long S32;
    > #else
    > # error "Cannot define type S32."
    > #endif



    HUH ??????????????????????

    I DONT WANT ANY IFDEFS !

    I WANT A COMPILER THAT CAN UNDERSTAND

    SINT32
    UINT32

    Or something like that...

    So that everybody on the planet can easily write:

    sint32 main()
    {
    sint32 a;
    uint8 b;
    sint8 c;

    a = 12345; // isn't life wonderfull

    b = 255; // look at me I just fit !!! :p

    c = 128; // oops ? is signed int max 127 or 128 ? hmmm
    c = -128; // <-- hmm never seen that so I am pretty sure sint8 is -127
    to 128 =DDD yess

    return 0;
    }

    Bye,
    Skybuck.
    Skybuck Flying, Jul 8, 2004
    #4
  5. "Skybuck Flying" <> writes:
    > Ok,
    >
    > I am getting really sick of all these integers types. Not only in C... but
    > mostly in C.
    >
    > WHY DOESN'T ANSI MAKE THESE TYPES A STANDARD
    >
    > sint8
    > uint8

    [...]
    > That's BULLSHIT :D

    [...]
    > THAT S WHY I AM GETTING REALLY SICK OF IT :DDDDD

    [...]

    As it happens, there's a perfectly reasonable answer to your question.
    Ask it again, without shouting and swearing at us, and I'll tell you
    what it is.

    I don't necessarily object to "dirty" words as such, and I can even
    sympathize with your frustration, but a little politeness goes a long
    way. This isn't alt.flame.

    --
    Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
    San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
    We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
    Keith Thompson, Jul 8, 2004
    #5
  6. Skybuck Flying

    -berlin.de Guest

    Skybuck Flying <> wrote:

    > sint8 c;
    > c = 128; // oops ? is signed int max 127 or 128 ? hmmm
    > c = -128; // <-- hmm never seen that so I am pretty sure sint8 is -127
    > to 128 =DDD yess


    Live isn't that simple: assuming that sint8 is meant to be a signed
    8 bit wide integer type, for a two-complements machine the values it
    can store range from -128 to + 127, while on a one-complements
    machine only from -127 to +127...
    Regards, Jens
    --
    \ Jens Thoms Toerring ___ -berlin.de
    \__________________________ http://www.toerring.de
    -berlin.de, Jul 8, 2004
    #6
  7. In 'comp.lang.c', "Skybuck Flying" <> wrote:

    > I am getting really sick of all these integers types. Not only in C...
    > but mostly in C.
    >
    > WHY DOESN'T ANSI MAKE THESE TYPES A STANDARD
    >
    > sint8
    > uint8
    >
    > sint16
    > uin16
    >
    > sint32
    > uint32
    >
    > sint64
    > uint64


    Get a C99 compiler.

    But keep in mind that on some machines (DSP, for example), a byte is wider
    that 8 bits! Sorry if you feel sick again..

    I use my own typedefs

    http://mapage.noos.fr/emdel/clib/ed/inc/TYPES.H

    and is fine to me. Just keep in mind the minimum requested values for each
    type, and don't go furher, even if the implementation allows it.

    For example :
    uchar : 0..0xFF
    uint/ushort : 0..0xFFFF
    ulong : 0..0xFFFFFFFF

    simple as that.

    --
    -ed- get my email here: http://marreduspam.com/ad672570
    The C-language FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
    C-reference: http://www.dinkumware.com/manuals/reader.aspx?lib=c99
    FAQ de f.c.l.c : http://www.isty-info.uvsq.fr/~rumeau/fclc/
    Emmanuel Delahaye, Jul 8, 2004
    #7
  8. "Eric Enright" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Skybuck Flying wrote:
    > >CAN SOMEBODY EXPLAIN WHY THE INTEGER TYPES IN C AND DELPHI ARE SO FUCKED

    IP
    > >?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

    >
    > I think thats enough coffee for you today.


    Lol, I am drinking pepsi right now =D

    >
    > --
    > Eric Enright /"\
    > ericAtiptsoftDcom \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign
    > X Against HTML E-Mail
    > Public Key: 0xBEDF636F / \
    Skybuck Flying, Jul 8, 2004
    #8
  9. "Keith Thompson" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "Skybuck Flying" <> writes:
    > > Ok,
    > >
    > > I am getting really sick of all these integers types. Not only in C...

    but
    > > mostly in C.
    > >
    > > WHY DOESN'T ANSI MAKE THESE TYPES A STANDARD
    > >
    > > sint8
    > > uint8

    > [...]
    > > That's BULLSHIT :D

    > [...]
    > > THAT S WHY I AM GETTING REALLY SICK OF IT :DDDDD

    > [...]
    >
    > As it happens, there's a perfectly reasonable answer to your question.
    > Ask it again, without shouting and swearing at us, and I'll tell you
    > what it is.
    >
    > I don't necessarily object to "dirty" words as such, and I can even
    > sympathize with your frustration, but a little politeness goes a long
    > way. This isn't alt.flame.


    Ok,

    How about this one:

    Why god why ? :)

    > --
    > Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith)

    <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
    > San Diego Supercomputer Center <*>

    <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
    > We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
    Skybuck Flying, Jul 8, 2004
    #9
  10. <-berlin.de> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Skybuck Flying <> wrote:
    >
    > > sint8 c;
    > > c = 128; // oops ? is signed int max 127 or 128 ? hmmm
    > > c = -128; // <-- hmm never seen that so I am pretty sure sint8

    is -127
    > > to 128 =DDD yess

    >
    > Live isn't that simple: assuming that sint8 is meant to be a signed
    > 8 bit wide integer type, for a two-complements machine the values it
    > can store range from -128 to + 127, while on a one-complements
    > machine only from -127 to +127...


    Examples please of one complements and two complements machines with actual
    c compilers !

    Besides from that it has nothing to do with sint8 vs short int... since both
    will have the same problem.

    Yet one of them is easier to use !

    > Regards, Jens
    > --
    > \ Jens Thoms Toerring ___ -berlin.de
    > \__________________________ http://www.toerring.de
    Skybuck Flying, Jul 8, 2004
    #10
  11. "Emmanuel Delahaye" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns9520F32EF8512hsnoservernet@212.27.42.74...
    > In 'comp.lang.c', "Skybuck Flying" <> wrote:
    >
    > > I am getting really sick of all these integers types. Not only in C...
    > > but mostly in C.
    > >
    > > WHY DOESN'T ANSI MAKE THESE TYPES A STANDARD
    > >
    > > sint8
    > > uint8
    > >
    > > sint16
    > > uin16
    > >
    > > sint32
    > > uint32
    > >
    > > sint64
    > > uint64

    >
    > Get a C99 compiler.
    >
    > But keep in mind that on some machines (DSP, for example), a byte is wider
    > that 8 bits! Sorry if you feel sick again..
    >
    > I use my own typedefs
    >
    > http://mapage.noos.fr/emdel/clib/ed/inc/TYPES.H


    typedef unsigned char uchar;
    typedef signed char schar;
    typedef unsigned short ushort;
    typedef unsigned int uint;
    typedef unsigned long ulong;

    That's what I call sick ! :D

    How are you going to call int64 ? or int128 ? or int256 ?

    >
    > and is fine to me. Just keep in mind the minimum requested values for each
    > type, and don't go furher, even if the implementation allows it.
    >
    > For example :
    > uchar : 0..0xFF
    > uint/ushort : 0..0xFFFF
    > ulong : 0..0xFFFFFFFF
    >
    > simple as that.
    >
    > --
    > -ed- get my email here: http://marreduspam.com/ad672570
    > The C-language FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
    > C-reference: http://www.dinkumware.com/manuals/reader.aspx?lib=c99
    > FAQ de f.c.l.c : http://www.isty-info.uvsq.fr/~rumeau/fclc/
    Skybuck Flying, Jul 8, 2004
    #11
  12. <-berlin.de> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Skybuck Flying <> wrote:
    >
    > > sint8 c;
    > > c = 128; // oops ? is signed int max 127 or 128 ? hmmm
    > > c = -128; // <-- hmm never seen that so I am pretty sure sint8

    is -127
    > > to 128 =DDD yess

    >
    > Live isn't that simple: assuming that sint8 is meant to be a signed
    > 8 bit wide integer type, for a two-complements machine the values it
    > can store range from -128 to + 127, while on a one-complements
    > machine only from -127 to +127...


    Besides from that... suppose many of these types of machines exist then the
    recommendation is really simple:

    In the documentation clearly state:

    When using sint8 it's wise to limit the range from -127 to 127 so that code
    works on one and two complement systems

    Voila ! :D

    Any problems with that ? :)
    Skybuck Flying, Jul 8, 2004
    #12
  13. In 'comp.lang.c', "Skybuck Flying" <> wrote:

    >
    > "Emmanuel Delahaye" <> wrote in message
    > news:Xns9520F32EF8512hsnoservernet@212.27.42.74...
    >> In 'comp.lang.c', "Skybuck Flying" <> wrote:
    >>
    >> > I am getting really sick of all these integers types. Not only in C...
    >> > but mostly in C.
    >> >
    >> > WHY DOESN'T ANSI MAKE THESE TYPES A STANDARD
    >> >
    >> > sint8
    >> > uint8
    >> >
    >> > sint16
    >> > uin16
    >> >
    >> > sint32
    >> > uint32
    >> >
    >> > sint64
    >> > uint64

    >>
    >> Get a C99 compiler.
    >>
    >> But keep in mind that on some machines (DSP, for example), a byte is wider
    >> that 8 bits! Sorry if you feel sick again..
    >>
    >> I use my own typedefs
    >>
    >> http://mapage.noos.fr/emdel/clib/ed/inc/TYPES.H

    >
    > typedef unsigned char uchar;
    > typedef signed char schar;
    > typedef unsigned short ushort;
    > typedef unsigned int uint;
    > typedef unsigned long ulong;
    >
    > That's what I call sick ! :D
    >
    > How are you going to call int64 ? or int128 ? or int256 ?


    The C99 standard doesn't define objetcs with a minimum range fitting in more
    that 64 bits.

    I should probably call them

    typedef unsigned long long ullong;

    Could be a problem with the next version of the standard.

    --
    -ed- get my email here: http://marreduspam.com/ad672570
    The C-language FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
    C-reference: http://www.dinkumware.com/manuals/reader.aspx?lib=c99
    FAQ de f.c.l.c : http://www.isty-info.uvsq.fr/~rumeau/fclc/
    Emmanuel Delahaye, Jul 8, 2004
    #13
  14. "Skybuck Flying" <> writes:
    > "Keith Thompson" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > "Skybuck Flying" <> writes:
    > > > Ok,
    > > >
    > > > I am getting really sick of all these integers types. Not only in C...

    > but
    > > > mostly in C.
    > > >
    > > > WHY DOESN'T ANSI MAKE THESE TYPES A STANDARD
    > > >
    > > > sint8
    > > > uint8

    > > [...]
    > > > That's BULLSHIT :D

    > > [...]
    > > > THAT S WHY I AM GETTING REALLY SICK OF IT :DDDDD

    > > [...]
    > >
    > > As it happens, there's a perfectly reasonable answer to your question.
    > > Ask it again, without shouting and swearing at us, and I'll tell you
    > > what it is.
    > >
    > > I don't necessarily object to "dirty" words as such, and I can even
    > > sympathize with your frustration, but a little politeness goes a long
    > > way. This isn't alt.flame.

    >
    > Ok,
    >
    > How about this one:
    >
    > Why god why ? :)


    You're not nearly as funny as you think you are.

    --
    Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
    San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
    We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
    Keith Thompson, Jul 8, 2004
    #14
  15. Emmanuel Delahaye <> writes:
    [...]
    > I use my own typedefs
    >
    > http://mapage.noos.fr/emdel/clib/ed/inc/TYPES.H


    which says:
    ] typedef unsigned char uchar;
    ] typedef signed char schar;
    ] typedef unsigned short ushort;
    ] typedef unsigned int uint;
    ] typedef unsigned long ulong;

    How are these abbreviations helpful? They don't convey any additional
    information to the reader; all they do is save some typing.

    If you want an unsigned char, just use "unsigned char".

    --
    Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
    San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
    We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
    Keith Thompson, Jul 8, 2004
    #15
  16. Emmanuel Delahaye <> writes:
    [...]
    > The C99 standard doesn't define objetcs with a minimum range fitting in more
    > that 64 bits.


    The C99 standard requires int8_t, int16_t, int32_t, and int64_t if the
    corresponding exact-width types are supported. It allows (and,
    arguably, encourages) intN_t for any supported size. If an
    implementation provides a 128-bit integer type, I would expect it to
    declare int128_t. (Likewise for uintN_t, of course.)

    > I should probably call them
    >
    > typedef unsigned long long ullong;


    Again, I don't see how that's useful. The type is unsigned long long;
    just call it that.

    --
    Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
    San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
    We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
    Keith Thompson, Jul 8, 2004
    #16
  17. In 'comp.lang.c', Keith Thompson <> wrote:

    >] typedef unsigned char uchar;
    >] typedef signed char schar;
    >] typedef unsigned short ushort;
    >] typedef unsigned int uint;
    >] typedef unsigned long ulong;
    >
    > How are these abbreviations helpful? They don't convey any additional
    > information to the reader; all they do is save some typing.
    >
    > If you want an unsigned char, just use "unsigned char".


    Yes, it's debatable, but type saving is sometimes not an option in a
    professional environment.

    --
    -ed- get my email here: http://marreduspam.com/ad672570
    The C-language FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
    C-reference: http://www.dinkumware.com/manuals/reader.aspx?lib=c99
    FAQ de f.c.l.c : http://www.isty-info.uvsq.fr/~rumeau/fclc/
    Emmanuel Delahaye, Jul 9, 2004
    #17
  18. Emmanuel Delahaye <> writes:
    > In 'comp.lang.c', Keith Thompson <> wrote:
    >
    > >] typedef unsigned char uchar;
    > >] typedef signed char schar;
    > >] typedef unsigned short ushort;
    > >] typedef unsigned int uint;
    > >] typedef unsigned long ulong;
    > >
    > > How are these abbreviations helpful? They don't convey any additional
    > > information to the reader; all they do is save some typing.
    > >
    > > If you want an unsigned char, just use "unsigned char".

    >
    > Yes, it's debatable, but type saving is sometimes not an option in a
    > professional environment.


    Huh? What does a "professional environment" have to do with it?

    There are numerous ways to define abbreviations (in your text editor,
    for example) without inflicting them on your readers.

    --
    Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
    San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
    We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
    Keith Thompson, Jul 9, 2004
    #18
  19. Skybuck Flying

    Harti Brandt Guest

    On Fri, 9 Jul 2004, Skybuck Flying wrote:

    SF>
    SF>"Eric Enright" <> wrote in message
    SF>news:...
    SF>> Skybuck Flying wrote:
    SF>> >CAN SOMEBODY EXPLAIN WHY THE INTEGER TYPES IN C AND DELPHI ARE SO FUCKED
    SF>IP
    SF>> >?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
    SF>>
    SF>> I think thats enough coffee for you today.
    SF>
    SF>Lol, I am drinking pepsi right now =D

    That's even worse...

    harti
    Harti Brandt, Jul 9, 2004
    #19
  20. Skybuck Flying

    Alex Fraser Guest

    "Keith Thompson" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Emmanuel Delahaye <> writes:
    > [...]
    > > I use my own typedefs
    > >
    > > http://mapage.noos.fr/emdel/clib/ed/inc/TYPES.H

    >
    > which says:
    > ] typedef unsigned char uchar;
    > ] typedef signed char schar;
    > ] typedef unsigned short ushort;
    > ] typedef unsigned int uint;
    > ] typedef unsigned long ulong;
    >
    > How are these abbreviations helpful? They don't convey any additional
    > information to the reader; all they do is save some typing.


    Patently untrue; they also save some reading, which is - arguably - of
    benefit for function parameter lists and casts.

    Alex
    Alex Fraser, Jul 9, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. JS

    Strings and ints

    JS, Oct 10, 2005, in forum: Java
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    353
    Roedy Green
    Oct 11, 2005
  2. Replies:
    3
    Views:
    562
    Mark P
    Apr 3, 2005
  3. Chris N. Hinds

    unions with long long ints and doubles?

    Chris N. Hinds, Sep 30, 2003, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    416
    Barry Schwarz
    Oct 2, 2003
  4. Neil Zanella
    Replies:
    49
    Views:
    1,025
    Flash Gordon
    Feb 17, 2004
  5. Laszlo Nagy
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    288
    Laszlo Nagy
    Aug 8, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page