Message-ID:	<374294CE.93F49A76@cs.joensuu.fi>
Date:	Wed, 19 May 1999 13:39:10 +0300
From:	Eugene Ageenko <ageson AT cs DOT joensuu DOT fi>
X-Mailer:	Mozilla 4.51 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Accept-Language:	ru
MIME-Version:	1.0
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: Portability and size_t type related question
References:	<199905131629 DOT SAA32708 AT acp3bf DOT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de> <373B5CA7 DOT 659C7965 AT unb DOT ca>
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Endlisnis wrote:
> 
> Hans-Bernhard Broeker wrote:
> 
> > > 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

I think 8 bits is minimum.

And define bytewise is Ok. when my file will be copied to 9-bit byte
machine, I suggest all bytes will go to new bytes, and extra bit will
be set to 0. By the way my concern is only the system with file
portability, so I HAVE TO BE ABLE READ THE SAME BINARY FILE. For
example PNG file, or JPG.

Eugene

- Raw text -