Thread: long int vs int

Hi,

I was running through the integer variable types yesterday and despite re-reading the details I cannot understand the need for both int and long int. What I mean is, if int provides the same range of values as long int, then why have both at least for my version? I understand that on some machines the size of int does differ.

Code:

Type   Number (bytes)  Range of Values
              
signed char   1        128 to +127
short int     2        32,768 to +32,767
int           4        2,147,438,648 to +2,147,438,647
long int      4        2,147,438,648 to +2,147,438,647
long long int 8        9,223,372,036,854,775,808 to +9,223,372,036,854,775,80

Similarly, for unsigned....
unsigned int     4       0 to 4,294,967,295
unsigned long    4       0 to 4,294,967,295

int is the default integer type supported by your compiler, and is typically compatible with your hardware and/or operating system.

There is actually no requirement that an int be the same size as a long int, although it often works out that way. There are some real-world compilers for which an int is the same size as a short int, and the long int supported by those compilers is actually bigger than an int (takes more storage, can hold larger values).

The actual rule is that all values that can be stored in a short int can also be stored in an int, and all values that can be stored in an int can also be stored in a long int. The reverse is not true: there is no requirement that every value that can be stored in a long int can also be stored in an int (although there is nothing preventing it either).

In practice that translates to a guideline that sizeof(short int) <= sizeof(int) <= sizeof(long int).

Originally Posted by grumpy

There is actually no requirement that an int be the same size as a long int, although it often works out that way. There are some real-world compilers for which an int is the same size as a short int, and the long int supported by those compilers is actually bigger than an int (takes more storage, can hold larger values).

I agree with what you say and most books point this out. What I am trying to confirm is that in my particular example (compiler/machine) and circumstance - there is no difference in storage size between long int and int (again for my particular example) ? Thanks.

Yes, with your particular compiler there is no difference between long int and int (except that, some compilers will give warnings about suspicious conversions if you pass an int to a function expecting a long int, even if it is true int and long int are the same size for that compiler). The reason is that a compiler is still required to support types short int, int, long int, even if two of them may correspond to the same thing. If you assume in code that int and long int are the same size, you will introduce a major problem for some person in the future (possibly yourself) who has to port your code to a compiler where int and long int are of different sizes.

Thank you for your input.