A c++ specific question. So i read a question about what makes a program 32 bit/64 bit, and the anwser it got was something like this (sorry i cant find the question, was somedays ago i looked at it and i cant find it again:( ): As long as you dont make any "pointer assumptions", you only need to recompile it. So my question is, what are pointer assumtions ? To my understanding there is 32 bit pointer and 64 bit pointers so i figure it is something to do with that . Please show the diffrence in code between them. Any other good habits to keep in mind while writing code, that helps it making it easy to convert between the to are also welcome :) tho please share examples with them
Ps. I know there is this post:
How do you write code that is both 32 bit and 64 bit compatible?
but i tougth it was kind of to generall with no good examples, for new programmers like myself. Like what is a 32 bit storage unit ect. Kinda hopping to break it down a bit more (no pun intended ^^ ) ds.
In general it means that your program behavior should never depend on the sizeof() of any types (that are not made to be of some exact size), neither explicitly nor implicitly (this includes possible struct alignments as well).
Pointers are just a subset of them, and it probably also means that you should not try to rely on being able to convert between unrelated pointer types and/or integers, unless they are specifically made for this (e.g. intptr_t).
In the same way you need to take care of things written to disk, where you should also never rely on the size of e.g. built in types, being the same everywhere.
Whenever you have to (because of e.g. external data formats) use explicitly sized types like uint32_t.
For a well-formed program (that is, a program written according to syntax and semantic rules of C++ with no undefined behaviour), the C++ standard guarantees that your program will have one of a set of observable behaviours. The observable behaviours vary due to unspecified behaviour (including implementation-defined behaviour) within your program. If you avoid unspecified behaviour or resolve it, your program will be guaranteed to have a specific and certain output. If you write your program in this way, you will witness no differences between your program on a 32-bit or 64-bit machine.
A simple (forced) example of a program that will have different possible outputs is as follows:
int main()
{
std::cout << sizeof(void*) << std::endl;
return 0;
}
This program will likely have different output on 32- and 64-bit machines (but not necessarily). The result of sizeof(void*) is implementation-defined. However, it is certainly possible to have a program that contains implementation-defined behaviour but is resolved to be well-defined:
int main()
{
int size = sizeof(void*);
if (size != 4) {
size = 4;
}
std::cout << size << std::endl;
return 0;
}
This program will always print out 4, despite the fact it uses implementation-defined behaviour. This is a silly example because we could have just done int size = 4;, but there are cases when this does appear in writing platform-independent code.
So the rule for writing portable code is: aim to avoid or resolve unspecified behaviour.
Here are some tips for avoiding unspecified behaviour:
Do not assume anything about the size of the fundamental types beyond that which the C++ standard specifies. That is, a char is at least 8 bit, both short and int are at least 16 bits, and so on.
Don't try to do pointer magic (casting between pointer types or storing pointers in integral types).
Don't use a unsigned char* to read the value representation of a non-char object (for serialisation or related tasks).
Avoid reinterpret_cast.
Be careful when performing operations that may over or underflow. Think carefully when doing bit-shift operations.
Be careful when doing arithmetic on pointer types.
Don't use void*.
There are many more occurrences of unspecified or undefined behaviour in the standard. It's well worth looking them up. There are some great articles online that cover some of the more common differences that you'll experience between 32- and 64-bit platforms.
"Pointer assumptions" is when you write code that relies on pointers fitting in other data types, e.g. int copy_of_pointer = ptr; - if int is a 32-bit type, then this code will break on 64-bit machines, because only part of the pointer will be stored.
So long as pointers are only stored in pointer types, it should be no problem at all.
Typically, pointers are the size of the "machine word", so on a 32-bit architecture, 32 bits, and on a 64-bit architecture, all pointers are 64-bit. However, there are SOME architectures where this is not true. I have never worked on such machines myself [other than x86 with it's "far" and "near" pointers - but lets ignore that for now].
Most compilers will tell you when you convert pointers to integers that the pointer doesn't fit into, so if you enable warnings, MOST of the problems will become apparent - fix the warnings, and chances are pretty decent that your code will work straight away.
There will be no difference between 32bit code and 64bit code, the goal of C/C++ and other programming languages are their portability, instead of the assembly language.
The only difference will be the distrib you'll compile your code on, all the work is automatically done by your compiler/linker, so just don't think about that.
But: if you are programming on a 64bit distrib, and you need to use an external library for example SDL, the external library will have to also be compiled in 64bit if you want your code to compile.
One thing to know is that your ELF file will be bigger on a 64bit distrib than on a 32bit one, it's just logic.
What's the point with pointer? when you increment/change a pointer, the compiler will increment your pointer from the size of the pointing type.
The contained type size is defined by your processor's register size/the distrib your working on.
But you just don't have to care about this, the compilation will do everything for you.
Sum: That's why you can't execute a 64bit ELF file on a 32bit distrib.
Typical pitfalls for 32bit/64bit porting are:
The implicit assumption by the programmer that sizeof(void*) == 4 * sizeof(char).
If you're making this assumption and e.g. allocate arrays that way ("I need 20 pointers so I allocate 80 bytes"), your code breaks on 64bit because it'll cause buffer overruns.
The "kitten-killer" , int x = (int)&something; (and the reverse, void* ptr = (void*)some_int). Again an assumption of sizeof(int) == sizeof(void*). This doesn't cause overflows but looses data - the higher 32bit of the pointer, namely.
Both of these issues are of a class called type aliasing (assuming identity / interchangability / equivalence on a binary representation level between two types), and such assumptions are common; like on UN*X, assuming time_t, size_t, off_t being int, or on Windows, HANDLE, void* and long being interchangeable, etc...
Assumptions about data structure / stack space usage (See 5. below as well). In C/C++ code, local variables are allocated on the stack, and the space used there is different between 32bit and 64bit mode due to the point below, and due to the different rules for passing arguments (32bit x86 usually on the stack, 64bit x86 in part in registers). Code that just about gets away with the default stacksize on 32bit might cause stack overflow crashes on 64bit.
This is relatively easy to spot as a cause of the crash but depending on the configurability of the application possibly hard to fix.
Timing differences between 32bit and 64bit code (due to different code sizes / cache footprints, or different memory access characteristics / patterns, or different calling conventions ) might break "calibrations". Say, for (int i = 0; i < 1000000; ++i) sleep(0); is likely going to have different timings for 32bit and 64bit ...
Finally, the ABI (Application Binary Interface). There's usually bigger differences between 64bit and 32bit environments than the size of pointers...
Currently, two main "branches" of 64bit environments exist, IL32P64 (what Win64 uses - int and long are int32_t, only uintptr_t/void* is uint64_t, talking in terms of the sized integers from ) and LP64 (what UN*X uses - int is int32_t, long is int64_t and uintptr_t/void* is uint64_t), but there's the "subdivisions" of different alignment rules as well - some environments assume long, float or double align at their respective sizes, while others assume they align at multiples of four bytes. In 32bit Linux, they align all at four bytes, while in 64bit Linux, float aligns at four, long and double at eight-byte multiples.
The consequence of these rules is that in many cases, bith sizeof(struct { ...}) and the offset of structure/class members are different between 32bit and 64bit environments even if the data type declaration is completely identical.
Beyond impacting array/vector allocations, these issues also affect data in/output e.g. through files - if a 32bit app writes e.g. struct { char a; int b; char c, long d; double e } to a file that the same app recompiled for 64bit reads in, the result will not be quite what's hoped for.
The examples just given are only about language primitives (char, int, long etc.) but of course affect all sorts of platform-dependent / runtime library data types, whether size_t, off_t, time_t, HANDLE, essentially any nontrivial struct/union/class ... - so the space for error here is large,
And then there's the lower-level differences, which come into play e.g. for hand-optimized assembly (SSE/SSE2/...); 32bit and 64bit have different (numbers of) registers, different argument passing rules; all of this affects strongly how such optimizations perform and it's very likely that e.g. SSE2 code which gives best performance in 32bit mode will need to be rewritten / needs to be enhanced to give best performance 64bit mode.
There's also code design constraints which are very different for 32bit and 64bit, particularly around memory allocation / management; an application that's been carefully coded to "maximize the hell out of the mem it can get in 32bit" will have complex logic on how / when to allocate/free memory, memory-mapped file usage, internal caching, etc - much of which will be detrimental in 64bit where you could "simply" take advantage of the huge available address space. Such an app might recompile for 64bit just fine, but perform worse there than some "ancient simple deprecated version" which didn't have all the maximize-32bit peephole optimizations.
So, ultimately, it's also about enhancements / gains, and that's where more work, partly in programming, partly in design/requirements comes in. Even if your app cleanly recompiles both on 32bit and 64bit environments and is verified on both, is it actually benefitting from 64bit ? Are there changes that can/should be done to the code logic to make it do more / run faster in 64bit ? Can you do those changes without breaking 32bit backward compatibility ? Without negative impacts on the 32bit target ? Where will the enhancements be, and how much can you gain ?
For a large commercial project, answers to these questions are often important markers on the roadmap because your starting point is some existing "money maker"...
Related
By conducting a basic test by running a simple C++ program on a normal desktop PC it seems plausible to suppose that sizes of pointers of any type (including pointers to functions) are equal to the target architecture bits ?
For example: in 32 bits architectures -> 4 bytes and in 64 bits architectures -> 8 bytes.
However I remember reading that, it is not like that in general!
So I was wondering what would be such circumstances?
For equality of size of pointers to data types compared with size of pointers
to other data types
For equality of size of pointers to data types compared with size of pointers
to functions
For equality of size of pointers to target architecture
No, it is not reasonable to assume. Making this assumption can cause bugs.
The sizes of pointers (and of integer types) in C or C++ are ultimately determined by the C or C++ implementation. Normal C or C++ implementations are heavily influenced by the architectures and the operating systems they target, but they may choose the sizes of their types for reasons other than execution speed, such as goals of supporting lower memory use (smaller pointers means less memory used in programs with lots of pointers), supporting code that was not written to be fully portable to any type sizes, or supporting easier use of big integers.
I have seen a compiler targeted for a 64-bit system but providing 32-bit pointers, for the purpose of building programs with smaller memory use. (It had been observed that the sizes of pointers were a considerable factor in memory consumption, due to the use of many structures with many connections and references using pointers.) Source code written with the assumption that the pointer size equalled the 64-bit register size would break.
It is reasonable to assume that in general sizes of pointers of any type (including pointers to functions) are equal to the target architecture bits?
Depends. If you're aiming for a quick estimate of memory consumption it can be good enough. But not if your programs correctness depends on it.
(including pointers to functions)
But here is one important remark. Although most pointers will have the same size, function pointers may differ. It is not guaranteed that a void* will be able to hold a function pointer. At least, this is true for C. I don't know about C++.
So I was wondering what would be such circumstances if any?
It can be tons of reasons why it differs. If your programs correctness depends on this size it is NEVER ok to do such an assumption. Check it up instead. It shouldn't be hard at all.
You can use this macro to check such things at compile time in C:
#include <assert.h>
static_assert(sizeof(void*) == 4, "Pointers are assumed to be exactly 4 bytes");
When compiling, this gives an error message:
$ gcc main.c
In file included from main.c:1:
main.c:2:1: error: static assertion failed: "Pointers are assumed to be exactly 4 bytes"
static_assert(sizeof(void*) == 4, "Pointers are assumed to be exactly 4 bytes");
^~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you're using C++, you can skip #include <assert.h> because static_assert is a keyword in C++. (And you can use the keyword _Static_assert in C, but it looks ugly, so use the include and the macro instead.)
Since these two lines are so extremely easy to include in your code, there's NO excuse not to do so if your program would not work correctly with the wrong pointer size.
It is reasonable to assume that in general sizes of pointers of any type (including pointers to functions) are equal to the target architecture bits?
It might be reasonable, but it isn't reliably correct. So I guess the answer is "no, except when you already know the answer is yes (and aren't worried about portability)".
Potentially:
systems can have different register sizes, and use different underlying widths for data and addressing: it's not apparent what "target architecture bits" even means for such a system, so you have to choose a specific ABI (and once you've done that you know the answer, for that ABI).
systems may support different pointer models, such as the old near, far and huge pointers; in that case you need to know what mode your code is being compiled in (and then you know the answer, for that mode)
systems may support different pointer sizes, such as the X32 ABI already mentioned, or either of the other popular 64-bit data models described here
Finally, there's no obvious benefit to this assumption, since you can just use sizeof(T) directly for whatever T you're interested in.
If you want to convert between integers and pointers, use intptr_t. If you want to store integers and pointers in the same space, just use a union.
Target architecture "bits" says about registers size. Ex. Intel 8051 is 8-bit and operates on 8-bit registers, but (external)RAM and (external)ROM is accessed with 16-bit values.
For correctness, you cannot assume anything. You have to check and be prepared to deal with weird situations.
As a general rule of thumb, it is a reasonable default assumption.
It's not universally true though. See the X32 ABI, for example, which uses 32bit pointers on 64bit architectures to save a bit of memory and cache footprint. Same for the ILP32 ABI on AArch64.
So, for guesstimating memory use, you can use your assumption and it will often be right.
It is reasonable to assume that in general sizes of pointers of any type (including pointers to functions) are equal to the target architecture bits?
If you look at all types of CPUs (including microcontrollers) currently being produced, I would say no.
Extreme counterexamples would be architectures where two different pointer sizes are used in the same program:
x86, 16-bit
In MS-DOS and 16-bit Windows, a "normal" program used both 16- and 32-bit pointers.
x86, 32-bit segmented
There were only a few, less known operating systems using this memory model.
Programs typically used both 32- and 48-bit pointers.
STM8A
This modern automotive 8-bit CPU uses 16- and 24-bit pointers. Both in the same program, of course.
AVR tiny series
RAM is addressed using 8-bit pointers, Flash is addressed using 16-bit pointers.
(However, AVR tiny cannot be programmed with C++, as far as I know.)
It's not correct, for example DOS pointers (16 bit) can be far (seg+ofs).
However, for the usual targets (Windows, OSX, Linux, Android, iOS) then it's correct. Because they all use the flat programming model which relies on paging.
In theory, you can also have systems which uses only the lower 32 bits when in x64. An example is a Windows executable linked without LARGEADDRESSAWARE. However this is to help the programmer avoid bugs when switching to x64. The pointers are truncated to 32 bits, but they are still 64 bit.
In x64 operating systems then this assumption is always true, because the flat mode is the only valid one. Long mode in CPU forces GDT entries to be 64 bit flat.
One also mentions a x32 ABI, I believe it is based on the same paging technology, forcing all pointers to be mapped to the lower 4gb. However this must be based to the same theory as in Windows. In x64 you can only have flat mode.
In 32 bit protected mode you could have pointers up to 48 bits. (Segmented mode). You can also have callgates. But, no operating system uses that mode.
Historically, on microcomputers and microcontrollers, pointers were often wider than general-purpose registers so that the CPU could address enough memory and still fit within the transistor budget. Most 8-bit CPUs (such as the 8080, Z80 or 6502) had 16-bit addresses.
Today, a mismatch is more likely to be because an app doesn’t need multiple gigabytes of data, so saving four bytes of memory on every pointer is a win.
Both C and C++ provide separate size_t, uintptr_t and off_t types, representing the largest possible object size (which might be smaller than the size of a pointer if the memory model is not flat), an integral type wide enough to hold a pointer, and a file offset (often wider than the largest object allowed in memory), respectively. A size_t (unsigned) or ptrdiff_t (signed) is the most portable way to get the native word size. Additionally, POSIX guarantees that the system compiler has some flag that means a long can hold any of these, but you cannot always assume so.
Generally pointers will be size 2 on a 16-bit system, 3 on a 24-bit system, 4 on a 32-bit system, and 8 on a 64-bit system. It depends on the ABI and C implementation. AMD has long and legacy modes, and there are differences between AMD64 and Intel64 for Assembly language programmers but these are hidden for higher level languages.
Any problems with C/C++ code is likely to be due to poor programming practices and ignoring compiler warnings. See: "20 issues of porting C++ code to the 64-bit platform".
See also: "Can pointers be of different sizes?" and LRiO's answer:
... you are asking about C++ and its compliant implementations, not some specific physical machine. I'd have to quote the entire standard in order to prove it, but the simple fact is that it makes no guarantees on the result of sizeof(T*) for any T, and (as a corollary) no guarantees that sizeof(T1*) == sizeof(T2*) for any T1 and T2).
Note: Where is answered by JeremyP, C99 section 6.3.2.3, subsection 8:
A pointer to a function of one type may be converted to a pointer to a function of another type and back again; the result shall compare equal to the original pointer. If a converted pointer is used to call a function whose type is not compatible with the pointed-to type, the behavior is undefined.
In GCC you can avoid incorrect assumptions by using built-in functions: "Object Size Checking Built-in Functions":
Built-in Function: size_t __builtin_object_size (const void * ptr, int type)
is a built-in construct that returns a constant number of bytes from ptr to the end of the object ptr pointer points to (if known at compile time). To determine the sizes of dynamically allocated objects the function relies on the allocation functions called to obtain the storage to be declared with the alloc_size attribute (see Common Function Attributes). __builtin_object_size never evaluates its arguments for side effects. If there are any side effects in them, it returns (size_t) -1 for type 0 or 1 and (size_t) 0 for type 2 or 3. If there are multiple objects ptr can point to and all of them are known at compile time, the returned number is the maximum of remaining byte counts in those objects if type & 2 is 0 and minimum if nonzero. If it is not possible to determine which objects ptr points to at compile time, __builtin_object_size should return (size_t) -1 for type 0 or 1 and (size_t) 0 for type 2 or 3.
According to cpp reference in 64 bit systems:
LLP64 or 4/4/8 (int and long are 32-bit, pointer is 64-bit)
Win64 API
LP64 or 4/8/8 (int is 32-bit, long and pointer are 64-bit)
Unix and Unix-like systems (Linux, Mac OS X)
Then how to consider long data type for codes which is written for Linux and Windows?
In C and C++, in portable code, you never know the exact size of a type like int or long int. If you move your code to a different compiler (or a different machine, or a different OS), the sizes of some of your types may change. This needn't be a problem; in fact it's only a problem if you want to make it a problem. (All of this has always been the case, and has nothing to do with someone's definitions of "LLP64" and "LP64" architecture families.)
On those (hopefully rare) occasions when you need a type of an exact size, one good way is to use types like int32_t and uint64_t from <cstdint> (or <stdint.h> in C).
But you really, really shouldn't need to specify the exact size of a type, most of the time. (There are those who say you need to specify the exact size of every type, but my advice is to ignore those people.)
Pretty much the only time you need to specify exact sizes is when trying to define a structure which you can read and write in "binary" fashion to conform to some externally-imposed storage layout. But there, specifying the exact sizes of data types isn't generally sufficient, because of issues like alignment, padding, and byte order. So you're better off writing explicit serialization and deserialization code anyway (or using "text" data formats instead, if you can get away with it).
My bottom line is that I rarely worry about the exact sizes of types.
In C++11 we are provided with fixed-width integer types, such as std::int32_tand std::int64_t, which are optional and therefore not optimal for writing cross-platform code. However, we also got non-optional variants for the types: e.g. the "fast" variants, e.g. std::int_fast32_tand std::int_fast64_t, as well as the "smallest-size" variants, e.g. std::int_least32_t, which both are at least the specified number of bits in size.
The code I am working on is part of a C++11-based cross-platform library, which supports compilation on the most popular Unix/Windows/Mac compilers. A question that now came up is if there is an advantage in replacing the existing integer types in the code by the C++11 fixed-width integer types.
A disadvantage of using variables like std::int16_t and std::int32_t is the lack of a guarantee that they are available, since they are only provided if the implementation directly supports the type (according to http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/types/integer).
However, since int is at least 16 bits and 16-bit are large enough for the integers used in the code, what about the usage of std::int_fast16_t over int? Does it provide a benefit to replace all int types by std::int_fast16_t and all unsigned int's by std::uint_fast16_t in that way or is this unnecessary?
Anologously, if knowing that all supported platforms and compilers feature an int of at least 32 bits size, does it make sense to replace them by std::int_fast32_t and std::uint_fast32_t respectively?
int can be 16, 32 or even 64 bit on current computers and compilers. In the future, it could be bigger (say, 128 bits).
If your code is ok with that, go with it.
If your code is only tested and working with 32 bit ints, then consider using int32_t. Then the code will fail at compile time instead of at run time when run on a system that doesn't have 32 bit ints (which is extremely rare today).
int_fast32_t is when you need at least 32 bits, but you care a lot about performance. On hardware that a 32 bit integer is loaded as a 64 bit integer, then bitshifted back down to a 32 bit integer in a cumbersome process, the int_fast_32_t may be a 64 bit integer. The cost of this is that on obscure platforms, your code behaves very differently.
If you are not testing on such platforms, I would advise against it.
Having things break at build time is usually better than having breaks at run time. If and when your code is actually run on some obscure processor needing these features, then fix it. The rule of "you probably won't need it" applies.
Be conservative, generate early errors on hardware you are not tested on, and when you need to port to said hardware do the work and testing required to be reliable.
In short:
Use int_fast##_t if and only if you have tested your code (and will continue to test it) on platforms where the int size varies, and you have shown that the performance improvement is worth that future maintenance.
Using int##_t with common ## sizes means that your code will fail to compile on platforms that you have not tested it on. This is good; untested code is not reliable, and unreliable code is usually worse than useless.
Without using int32_t, and using int, your code will sometimes have ints that are 32 and sometimes ints that are 64 (and in theory more), and sometimes ints that are 16. If you are willing to test and support every such case in every such int, go for it.
Note that arrays of int_fast##_t can have cache problems: they could be unreasonably big. As an example, int_fast16_t could be 64 bits. An array of a few thousand or million of them could be individually fast to work with, but the cache misses caused by their bulk could make them slower overall; and the risk that things get swapped out to slower storage grows.
int_least##_t can be faster in those cases.
The same applies, doubly so, to network-transmitted and file-stored data, on top of the obvious issue that network/file data usually has to follow formats that are stable over compiler/hardware changes. This, however, is a different question.
However, when using fixed width integer types you must pay special attention to the fact that int, long, etc. still have the same width as before. Integer promotion still happens based on the size of int, which depends on the compiler you are using. An integral number in your code will be of type int, with the associated width. This can lead to unwanted behaviour if you compile your code using a different compiler. For more detailed info: https://stackoverflow.com/a/13424208/3144964
I have just realised that the OP is just asking about int_fast##_t not int##_t since the later is optional. However, I will keep the answer hopping it may help someone.
I would add something. Fixed size integers are so important (or even a must) for building APIs for other languages. One example is when when you want to pInvoke functions and pass data to them in a native C++ DLL from a .NET managed code for example. In .NET, int is guaranteed to be a fixed size (I think it is 32bit). So, if you used int in C++ and it was considered as 64-bit rather than 32bit, this may cause problems and cuts down the sequence of wrapped structs.
On what exactly does the size of a primitive data type like int depend on?
Compiler
Processor
Development Environment
Or is it a combination of these or other factors?
An explanation on the reason of the same will be really helpful.
EDIT: Sorry for the confusion..I meant to ask about Primitive data type like int and not regarding PODs, I do understand PODs can include structure and with structure it is a whole different ball game with padding coming in to the picture.
I have corrected the Q, the edit note here should ensure the answers regarding POD don't look irrelevant.
I think there are two parts to this question:
What sizes primitive types are allowed to be.
This is specified by the C and C++ standards: the types have allowed minimum value ranges they must have, which implicitly places a lower bound on their size in bits (e.g. long must be at least 32 bit to comply with the standard).
The standards do not specify the size in bytes, because the definition of the byte is up to the implementation, e.g. char is byte, but byte size (CHAR_BIT macro) may be 16 bit.
The actual size as defined by the implementation.
This, as other answers have already pointed out, is dependent on the implementation: the compiler. And the compiler implementation, in turn, is heavily influenced by the target architecture. So it's plausible to have two compilers running on the same OS and architecture, but having different size of int. The only assumption you can make is the one stated by the standard (given that the compiler implements it).
There also may be additional ABI requirements (e.g. fixed size of enums).
First of all, it depends on Compiler. Compiler in turns usually depends on the architecture, processor, development environment etc because it takes them into account. So you may say it's a combination of all. But I would NOT say that. I would say, Compiler, since on the same machine you may have different sizes of POD and built-in types, if you use different compilers. Also note that your source code is input to the compiler, so it's the compiler which makes final decision of the sizes of POD and built-in types. However, it's also true that this decision is influenced by the underlying architecture of the target machine. After all, the real useful compiler has to emit efficient code that eventually runs on the machine you target.
Compilers provides options too. Few of them might effect sizes also!
EDIT: What Standards say,
Size of char, signed char and unsigned char is defined by C++ Standard itself! Sizes of all other types are defined by the compiler.
C++03 Standard $5.3.3/1 says,
sizeof(char), sizeof(signed char) and
sizeof(unsigned char) are 1; the
result of sizeof applied to any other
fundamental type (3.9.1) is
implementation-defined. [Note: in
particular,sizeof(bool) and
sizeof(wchar_t) are
implementation-defined.69)
C99 Standard ($6.5.3.4) also itself defines the size of char, signed char and unsigned char to be 1, but leaves the size of other types to be defined by the compiler!
EDIT:
I found this C++ FAQ chapter really good. The entire chapter. It's very tiny chapter though. :-)
http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/intrinsic-types.html
Also read the comments below, there are some good arguments!
If you're asking about the size of a primitive type like int, I'd say it depends on the factor you cited.
The compiler/environment couple (where environment often means OS) is surely a part of it, since the compiler can map the various "sensible" sizes on the builtin types in different ways for various reasons: for example, compilers on x86_64 Windows will usually have a 32 bit long and a 64 bit long long to avoid breaking code thought for plain x86; on x86_64 Linux, instead, long is usually 64 bit because it's a more "natural" choice and apps developed for Linux are generally more architecture-neutral (because Linux runs on a much greater variety of architectures).
The processor surely matters in the decision: int should be the "natural size" of the processor, usually the size of the general-purpose registers of the processor. This means that it's the type that will work faster on the current architecture. long instead is often thought as a type which trades performance for an extended range (this is rarely true on regular PCs, but on microcontrollers it's normal).
If in instead you're also talking about structs & co. (which, if they respect some rules, are POD), again the compiler and the processor influence their size, since they are made of builtin types and of the appropriate padding chosen by the compiler to achieve the best performance on the target architecture.
As I commented under #Nawaz's answer, it technically depends solely on the compiler.
The compiler is just tasked with taking valid C++ code, and outputting valid machine code (or whatever language it targets).
So a C++ compiler could decide to make an int have a size of 15, and require it to be aligned on 5-byte boundaries, and it could decide to insert arbitrary padding between the variables in a POD. Nothing in the standard prohibits this, and it could still generate working code.
It'd just be much slower.
So in practice, compilers take some hints from the system they're running on, in two ways:
- the CPU has certain preferences: for example, it may have 32-bit wide registers, so making an int 32 bits wide would be a good idea, and it usually requires variables to be naturally aligned (a 4-byte wide variable must be aligned on an address divisible by 4, for example), so a sensible compiler respects these preferences because it yields faster code.
- the OS may have some influence too, in that if it uses another ABI than the compiler, making system calls is going to be needlessly difficult.
But those are just practical considerations to make life a bit easier for the programmer or to generate faster code. They're not required.
The compiler has the final word, and it can choose to completely ignore both the CPU and the OS. As long as it generates a working executable with the semantics specified in the C++ standard.
It depends on the implementation (compiler).
Implementation-defined behavior means unspecified behavior where each implementation documents how the choice is made.
A struct can also be POD, in which case you can explicity control potential padding between members with #pragma pack on some compilers.
Recently, I was challenged in a recent interview with a string manipulation problem and asked to optimize for performance. I had to use an iterator to move back and forth between TCHAR characters (with UNICODE support - 2bytes each).
Not really thinking of the array length, I made a curial mistake with not using size_t but an int to iterate through. I understand it is not compliant and not secure.
int i, size = _tcslen(str);
for(i=0; i<size; i++){
// code here
}
But, the maximum memory we can allocate is limited. And if there is a relation between int and register sizes, it may be safe to use an integer.
E.g.: Without any virtual mapping tools, we can only map 2^register-size bytes. Since TCHAR is 2 bytes long, half of that number. For any system that has int as 32-bits, this is not going to be a problem even if you dont use an unsigned version of int. People with embedded background used to think of int as 16-bits, but memory size will be restricted on such a device. So I wonder if there is a architectural fine-tuning decision between integer and register sizes.
The C++ standard doesn't specify the size of an int. (It says that sizeof(char) == 1, and sizeof(char) <= sizeof(short) <= sizeof(int) <= sizeof(long).
So there doesn't have to be a relation to register size. A fully conforming C++ implementation could give you 256 byte integers on your PC with 32-bit registers. But it'd be inefficient.
So yes, in practice, the size of the int datatype is generally equal to the size of the CPU's general-purpose registers, since that is by far the most efficient option.
If an int was bigger than a register, then simple arithmetic operations would require more than one instruction, which would be costly. If they were smaller than a register, then loading and storing the values of a register would require the program to mask out the unused bits, to avoid overwriting other data. (That is why the int datatype is typically more efficient than short.)
(Some languages simply require an int to be 32-bit, in which case there is obviously no relation to register size --- other than that 32-bit is chosen because it is a common register size)
Going strictly by the standard, there is no guarantee as to how big/small an int is, much less any relation to the register size. Also, some architectures have different sizes of registers (i.e: not all registers on the CPU are the same size) and memory isn't always accessed using just one register (like DOS with its Segment:Offset addressing).
With all that said, however, in most cases int is the same size as the "regular" registers since it's supposed to be the most commonly used basic type and that's what CPUs are optimized to operate on.
AFAIK, there is no direct link between register size and the size of int.
However, since you know for which platform you're compiling the application, you can define your own type alias with the sizes you need:
Example
#ifdef WIN32 // Types for Win32 target
#define Int16 short
#define Int32 int
// .. etc.
#elif defined // for another target
Then, use the declared aliases.
I am not totally aware, if I understand this correct, since some different problems (memory sizes, allocation, register sizes, performance?) are mixed here.
What I could say is (just taking the headline), that on most actual processors for maximum speed you should use integers that match register size. The reason is, that when using smaller integers, you have the advantage of needing less memory, but for example on the x86 architecture, an additional command for conversion is needed. Also on Intel you have the problem, that accesses to unaligned (mostly on register-sized boundaries) memory will give some penality. Off course, on todays processors things are even more complex, since the CPUs are able to process commands in parallel. So you end up fine tuning for some architecture.
So the best guess -- without knowing the architectore -- speeedwise is, to use register sized ints, as long you can afford the memory.
I don't have a copy of the standard, but my old copy of The C Programming Language says (section 2.2) int refers to "an integer, typically reflecting the natural size of integers on the host machine." My copy of The C++ Programming Language says (section 4.6) "the int type is supposed to be chosen to be the most suitable for holding and manipulating integers on a given computer."
You're not the only person to say "I'll admit that this is technically a flaw, but it's not really exploitable."
There are different kinds of registers with different sizes. What's important are the address registers, not the general purpose ones. If the machine is 64-bit, then the address registers (or some combination of them) must be 64-bits, even if the general-purpose registers are 32-bit. In this case, the compiler may have to do some extra work to actually compute 64-bit addresses using multiple general purpose registers.
If you don't think that hardware manufacturers ever make odd design choices for their registers, then you probably never had to deal with the original 8086 "real mode" addressing.