From:	Richard Dawe <richdawe AT bigfoot DOT com>
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: C++, complex, etc
Date:	Wed, 17 May 2000 22:40:46 +0100
Organization:	Customer of Planet Online
Lines:	25
Message-ID:	<392311DE.3700368D@bigfoot.com>
References:	<Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1000517145742 DOT 626A-100000 AT is> <3922DA9E DOT 8DF00783 AT mtu-net DOT ru>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	modem-113.plutonium.dialup.pol.co.uk
Mime-Version:	1.0
X-Trace:	news7.svr.pol.co.uk 958599708 25418 62.136.66.241 (17 May 2000 21:41:48 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date:	17 May 2000 21:41:48 GMT
X-Complaints-To:	abuse AT theplanet DOT net
X-Mailer:	Mozilla 4.51 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i586)
X-Accept-Language:	de,fr
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Hello.

"Alexei A. Frounze" wrote:
> 
> Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > You need it for portability.
> >
> > size_t is not equal to int.  Its precise definition depends on the
> > implementation.
[snip]
> I said they equals machine word. I.e. 32-bit on i386+. For sure
> developer can setup them differently... But this way seems to be common.

You seem to be missing the point that you shouldn't rely on size_t and int
being the same size (also: size_t is unsigned, ssize_t is signed).

I don't think the size of size_t is up to each developer - it's up to the
people writing the standard libraries. What happens if they decide to
change the size of size_t to e.g. a larger size? All your code will break.

Bye,

-- 
Richard Dawe
richdawe AT bigfoot DOT com ICQ 47595498 http://www.bigfoot.com/~richdawe/

- Raw text -