Mail Archives: djgpp/1999/05/13/12:29:41
In article <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 990513161505 DOT 12629T-100000 AT is> you wrote:
> On Thu, 13 May 1999, Guillermo Rodriguez Garcia wrote:
> > >> Like 'char' is always 1 byte.
> > >
> > >That's not true, either. There are compilers (mostly for embedded
> > >systems) where `char' is 32-bit wide.
> >
> > Then a byte is defined as 32 bits on those systems.
> AFAIK, there's no such thing as a `byte' in the C language description.
At least in the C9x draft standard, there is. Quote:
3.4
[#1] byte
addressable unit of data storage large enough to hold any
member of the basic character set of the execution
environment
[...]
3.5
[#1] character
bit representation that fits in a byte
AFAIK, effectively the same definition is part of the current C89
standard as well.
> Most people think that byte is a synonym for 8 bits.
I'm aware of that. But that doesn't make it correct, at least not from
a 'language-lawyer' point of view. Actually, the equivalence of 8 bits
being a byte is a rather recent invention, compared to the use of the
'byte' in computing. There have been 7-bit bytes, 9-bit ones. 8 bits
just happens to be *so* common today that most of us, esp. those who
grew up on 8-bit home-computers, tend to think it's the only possible
definition.
You see, there *is* a reason that the 8-bit byte is called 'octet' in
several other standards (X11, MIME, e.g.): the term 'byte' really
isn't specific enough, if a standard writer wants to nail down an
implementor to do exactly what the standard says.
--
Hans-Bernhard Broeker (broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de)
Even if all the snow were burnt, ashes would remain.
- Raw text -