Date:	Thu, 18 May 2000 14:16:24 +0300 (IDT)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	"Alexei A. Frounze" <alex DOT fru AT mtu-net DOT ru>
cc:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: C++, complex, etc
In-Reply-To:	<3923BA11.AD387617@mtu-net.ru>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1000518141411.13603C-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Thu, 18 May 2000, Alexei A. Frounze wrote:

> Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > 
> > On Thu, 18 May 2000, Alexei A. Frounze wrote:
> > 
> > > I don't use size_t in my sources.
> > 
> > You cannot do that if those sources call standard functions which accept
> > or return size_t values, such as strlen, memcpy, malloc, etc.  If you use
> > int instead of size_t in these cases, your code becomes non-portable.
> 
> Really? How about type casting? It doesn't work at all for int<->size_t?

Casting doesn't solve such problems, it only prevents the compiler from 
complaining.  For example, if size_t is unsigned int, then casting it to 
int will not avoid problems from comparing signed and unsigned values.

> If it's a standard type, what is it needed for then? Isn't int enough?

No, it isn't enough.  If it were enough, the ANSI comittee would not have 
invented it.

- Raw text -