Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> I really am glad they haven't. I think it's super-annoying that we
> need hacks like UINT64_FORMAT all over the place. I think it was a
> mistake not to nail down the size that each type is expected to be in
> the original C standard,
Well, mumble. One must remember that when C was designed, there was
a LOT more variability in hardware designs than we see today. They
could not have put a language with fixed ideas about datatype widths
onto, say, PDP-10s (36-bit words) or Crays (60-bit, IIRC). But it
is a darn shame that people weren't more consistent about mapping
the C types onto machines with S/360-like addressing.
> and making more changes to the conventions
> now would cause a whole bunch of unnecessary code churn, probably for
> almost everybody using C.
The error in your thinking is believing that there *is* a convention.
There isn't; see "long".
Anyway, my point is that we have created a set of type names that
have the semantics we want, and we should avoid confusing those with
underlying C types that are *not* guaranteed to be the same thing.
regards, tom lane