From:	Craig Franck <clfranck AT worldnet DOT att DOT net>
Newsgroups:	comp.lang.c,comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: having trouble with long numbers
Date:	30 Jul 1997 00:39:53 GMT
Organization:	AT&T WorldNet Services
Lines:	30
Message-ID:	<5rm2gp$o2r@mtinsc05.worldnet.att.net>
References:	<01bc9c51$0ceeec80$78ed1fcc AT darkstar> <33DE6FA3 DOT 460B59E AT voyager DOT net> <5rlvav$101 AT news DOT ox DOT ac DOT uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	207.116.45.198
Mime-Version:	1.0
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

mert0407 AT sable DOT ox DOT ac DOT uk (George Foot) wrote:
>Mark Levis (mlevis AT voyager DOT net) wrote:
>
>: Use a double. It will have precision up to 14 digits. An int will only
>: handle number from
>: -32767 to 32768.
>: unsigned int 0 65535
>
>That's compiler dependent; 

Actually, that is compiler independent. You should always try to
keep within the portable range of values of any type.

>since this was cross-posted to
>comp.os.msdos.djgpp I assume the compiler in question is the gcc with
>djgpp, which uses 32-bit ints by default, not 16-bit. The range is about
>four (American) billion I believe.

It is still best to use a long [-2,147,483,647..2,147,483,647] or
unsigned long [0..4,294,967,295] and keep within the portable 
range of values. If that doesn't do it, use a double rather than
some unportable larger integer type.

-- 
Craig
clfranck AT worldnet DOT att DOT net
Manchester, NH
Most rock journalism is people who can't write interviewing
people who can't talk for people who can't read. -- Frank Zappa

- Raw text -