To: mcastle AT umr DOT edu (Mike Castle)
Cc: lopez AT vsl DOT ist DOT ucf DOT edu, brian_acton AT powertalk DOT apple DOT com,
        djgpp AT sun DOT soe DOT clarkson DOT edu
Subject: Re: djgpp and the 386SX 
Date: Thu, 06 Oct 94 08:58:51 +0200
From: eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il

> Ansi requires that "int" be AT LEAST -32,767 to 32,767.  A
> specific implementation may make that larger, but it's not a
> necessity (in short, gcc could use 16-bit ints, and be perfectly
> ansi conforming).  

While this is certainly true, and one shouldn't assume 32-bit ints
when writing a portable program (although most of us do assume this
anyway ;-), my posting had nothing to do with ANSI and portability.
The guy who started this thread posted a fragment of code which
allegedly didn't work, and someone answered him that it doesn't work
because for (i = 0; i < 40000; i++) isn't supposed to work with i
declared int because ints are only 16-bit wide.  To which I replied
saying in effect this *cannot* possibly be the reason of failure.
That's all.

	Eli Zaretskii