When should I just use “int” versus more sign-specific or size-specific types?

Question

I have a little VM for a programming language implemented in C. It supports being compiled under both 32-bit and 64-bit architectures as well as both C and C++.

I\'m try

Answer 1

Just using int everywhere may seem tempting, since it minimizes the need for casting, but there are several potential pitfalls you should be aware of:

• An int might be shorter than you expect. Even though, on most desktop platforms, an int is typically 32 bits, the C standard only guarantees a minimum length of 16 bits. Could your code ever need numbers larger than 2¹⁶−1 = 32,767, even for temporary values? If so, don't use an int. (You may want to use a long instead; a long is guaranteed to be at least 32 bits.)

• Even a long might not always be long enough. In particular, there is no guarantee that the length of an array (or of a string, which is a char array) fits in a long. Use size_t (or ptrdiff_t, if you need a signed difference) for those.

  In particular, a size_t is defined to be large enough to hold any valid array index, whereas an int or even a long might not be. Thus, for example, when iterating over an array, your loop counter (and its initial / final values) should generally be a size_t, at least unless you know for sure that the array is short enough for a smaller type to work. (But be careful when iterating backwards: size_t is unsigned, so for(size_t i = n-1; i >= 0; i--) is an infinite loop! Using i != SIZE_MAX or i != (size_t) -1 should work, though; or use a do/while loop, but beware of the case n == 0!)

• An int is signed. In particular, this means that int overflow is undefined behavior. If there's ever any risk that your values might legitimately overflow, don't use an int; use an unsigned int (or an unsigned long, or uintNN_t) instead.

• Sometimes, you just need a fixed bit length. If you're interfacing with an ABI, or reading / writing a file format, that requires integers of a specific length, then that's the length you need to use. (Of course, is such situations, you may also need to worry about things like endianness, and so may sometimes have to resort to manually packing data byte-by-byte anyway.)

All that said, there are also reasons to avoid using the fixed-length types all the time: not only is int32_t awkward to type all the time, but forcing the compiler to always use 32-bit integers is not always optimal, particularly on platforms where the native int size might be, say, 64 bits. You could use, say, C99 int_fast32_t, but that's even more awkward to type.

---

Thus, here are my personal suggestions for maximum safety and portability:

• Define your own integer types for casual use in a common header file, something like this:

  #include <limits.h>
  typedef int i16;
  typedef unsigned int u16;
  #if UINT_MAX >= 4294967295U
    typedef int i32;
    typedef unsigned int u32;
  #else
    typedef long i32;
    typedef unsigned long i32;
  #endif
  

  Use these types for anything where the exact size of the type doesn't matter, as long as they're big enough. The type names I've suggested are both short and self-documenting, so they should be easy to use in casts where needed, and minimize the risk of errors due to using a too-narrow type.

  Conveniently, the u32 and u16 types defined as above are guaranteed to be at least as wide as unsigned int, and thus can be used safely without having to worry about them being promoted to int and causing undefined overflow behavior.

• Use size_t for all array sizes and indexing, but be careful when casting between it and any other integer types. Optionally, if you don't like to type so many underscores, typedef a more convenient alias for it too.

• For calculations that assume overflow at a specific number of bits, either use uintNN_t, or just use u16 / u32 as defined above and explicit bitmasking with &. If you choose to use uintNN_t, make sure to protect yourself against unexpected promotion to int; one way to do that is with a macro like:

  #define u(x) (0U + (x))
  

  which should let you safely write e.g.:

  uint32_t a = foo(), b = bar();
  uint32_t c = u(a) * u(b);  /* this is always unsigned multiply */
  

• For external ABIs that require a specific integer length, again define a specific type, e.g.:

  typedef int32_t fooint32;  /* foo ABI needs 32-bit ints */
  

  Again, this type name is self-documenting, with regard to both its size and its purpose.

  If the ABI might actually require, say, 16- or 64-bit ints instead, depending on the platform and/or compile-time options, you can change the type definition to match (and rename the type to just fooint) — but then you really do need to be careful whenever you cast anything to or from that type, because it might overflow unexpectedly.

• If your code has its own structures or file formats that require specific bitlengths, consider defining custom types for those too, exactly as if it was an external ABI. Or you could just use uintNN_t instead, but you'll lose a little bit of self-documentation that way.

• For all these types, don't forget to also define the corresponding _MIN and _MAX constants for easy bounds checking. This might sound like a lot of work, but it's really just a couple of lines in a single header file.

Finally, remember to be careful with integer math, especially overflows. For example, keep in mind that the difference of two n-bit signed integers may not fit in an n-bit int. (It will fit into an n-bit unsigned int, if you know it's non-negative; but remember that you need to cast the inputs to an unsigned type before taking their difference to avoid undefined behavior!) Similarly, to find the average of two integers (e.g. for a binary search), don't use avg = (lo + hi) / 2, but rather e.g. avg = lo + (hi + 0U - lo) / 2; the former will break if the sum overflows.

Answer 2

You seem to know what you are doing, judging from the linked source code, which I took a glance at.

You said it yourself - using "specific" types makes you have more casts. That's not an optimal route to take anyway. Use int as much as you can, for things that do not mandate a more specialized type.

The beauty of int is that it is abstracted over the types you speak of. It is optimal in all cases where you need not expose the construct to a system unaware of int. It is your own tool for abstracting the platform for your program(s). It may also yield you speed, size and alignment advantage, depending.

In all other cases, e.g. where you want to deliberately stay close to machine specifications, int can and sometimes should be abandoned. Typical cases include network protocols where the data goes on the wire, and interoperability facilities - bridges of sorts between C and other languages, kernel assembly routines accessing C structures. But don't forget that sometimes you would want to in fact use int even in these cases, as it follows platforms own "native" or preferred word size, and you might want to rely on that very property.

With platform types like uint32_t, a kernel might want to use these (although it may not have to) in its data structures if these are accessed from both C and assembler, as the latter doesn't typically know what int is supposed to be.

To sum up, use int as much as possible and resort to moving from more abstract types to "machine" types (bytes/octets, words, etc) in any situation which may require so.

As to size_t and other "usage-suggestive" types - as long as syntax follows semantics inherent to the type - say, using size_t for well, size values of all kinds - I would not contest. But I would not liberally apply it to anything just because it is guaranteed to be the largest type (regardless if it is actually true). That's an underwater stone you don't want to be stepping on later. Code has to be self-explanatory to the degree possible, I would say - having a size_t where none is naturally expected, would raise eyebrows, for a good reason. Use size_t for sizes. Use offset_t for offsets. Use [u]intN_t for octets, words, and such things. And so on.

This is about applying semantics inherent in a particular C type, to your source code, and about the implications on the running program.

Also, as others have illustrated, don't shy away from typedef, as it gives you the power to efficiently define your own types, an abstraction facility I personally value. A good program source code may not even expose a single int, nevertheless relying on int aliased behind a multitude of purpose-defined types. I am not going to cover typedef here, the other answers hopefully will.

Answer 3

Here are a few things I do. Not sure they're for everyone but they work for me.

1. Never use int or unsigned int directly. There always seems to be a more appropriately named type for the job.
2. If a variable needs to be a specific width (e.g. for a hardware register or to match a protocol) use a width-specific type (e.g. uint32_t).
3. For array iterators, where I want to access array elements 0 thru n, this should also be unsigned (no reason to access any index less than 0) and I use one of the fast types (e.g. uint_fast16_t), selecting the type based on the minimum size required to access all array elements. For example, if I have a for loop that will iterate through 24 elements max, I'll use uint_fast8_t and let the compiler (or stdint.h, depending how pedantic we want to get) decide which is the fastest type for that operation.
4. Always use unsigned variables unless there is a specific reason for them to be signed.
5. If your unsigned variables and signed variables need to play together, use explicit casts and be aware of the consequences. (Luckily this will be minimized if you avoid using signed variables except where absolutely necessary.)

If you disagree with any of those or have recommended alternatives please let me know in the comments! That's the life of a software developer... we keep learning or we become irrelevant.

Answer 4

Keep large numbers that are used to access members of arrays, or control buffers as size_t.

For an example of a project that makes use of size_t, refer to GNU's dd.c, line 155.

Answer 5

Always.

Unless you have specific reasons for using a more specific type, including you're on a 16-bit platform and need integers greater than 32767, or you need to ensure proper byte order and signage for data exchange over a network or in a file (and unless you're resource constrained, consider transferring data in "plain text," meaning ASCII or UTF8 if you prefer).

My experience has shown that "just use 'int'" is a good maxim to live by and makes it possible to turn out working, easily maintained, correct code quickly every time. But your specific situation may differ, so take this advice with a bit of well-deserved scrutiny.