I failed on one, number 4. I bravely assumed 16 bit integers cannot exist. Can anyone name a concrete platform/compiler where int is/was 16 bit. Or is this just a theoretical option left open by the spec?
So you think you know C? (2016)
21–30 of 344 posts
Re: So you think you know C? (2016)
#22I emailed this to my boss telling him I got 0/5. He just setup a 1:1 meeting first thing Monday AM.
Re: So you think you know C? (2016)
#23I failed on one, number 4. I bravely assumed 16 bit integers cannot exist. Can anyone name a concrete platform/compiler where int is/was 16 bit. Or is this just a theoretical option left open by the spec?
AVR, so certain Arduinos. On an Arduino Uno, sizeof(int) returns 2.
Re: So you think you know C? (2016)
#241/5.
I don’t know C.
Re: So you think you know C? (2016)
#254/5 I tricked myself into thinking I could figure out the last one....oops.
Re: So you think you know C? (2016)
#26I failed on one, number 4. I bravely assumed 16 bit integers cannot exist. Can anyone name a concrete platform/compiler where int is/was 16 bit. Or is this just a theoretical option left open by the spec?
Most compilers for 8-bit and 16-bit CPUs, e.g. Z80 or 80286.
Re: So you think you know C? (2016)
#27I failed on one, number 4. I bravely assumed 16 bit integers cannot exist. Can anyone name a concrete platform/compiler where int is/was 16 bit. Or is this just a theoretical option left open by the spec?
Many C compilers that target 8-bit (sometimes 16-bit) machines. MOS 6502, Zilog Z80, and Motorola 6809. Modern examples include Intel 8051, AVR and PIC.
Re: So you think you know C? (2016)
#28“I don’t know” is not the right answer. I do know. I know the answer to be “Unspecified”.
Re: So you think you know C? (2016)
#29I failed on one, number 4. I bravely assumed 16 bit integers cannot exist. Can anyone name a concrete platform/compiler where int is/was 16 bit. Or is this just a theoretical option left open by the spec?
Turbo C on MS-DOS for one. In fact 16-bit int was the norm on that platform, because the architecture didn't have 32-bit general purpose registers.
In the C89 days, you'd use 'short' in aggregates (structs and array) for values you knew wouldn't exceed 16 bits so didn't want to potentially waste space; 'long' in situations where you knew 16 bits wouldn't be enough; and 'int' the rest of the time (where 16 bits was enough, and there weren't any storage benefits to outweigh the performance benefit of using the native word size).
Re: So you think you know C? (2016)
#30There are a few problems with the questionnaire. "I don't know" is pretty generic choice to be given/choosen.
Say for example, in question 5, the statement "return i++ + ++i;" is undefined, because the value of i is read and modified twice in a single sequence point (and of course, the order of addition is unspecified), which is not allowed in C. So the answer is "Undefined." (The explanation given in the page not accurate enough in terms of C)
And for question 1, the code is valid, but the result is not strictly defined. It depends on the implementation. So the answer is "Implementation defined."
The usage of "main()" hurts me, the strictly conforming way is to write it as "int main(void)" (or similar)
I feel like the questionnaire piss off people who really knows C.