delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
From: | dontmailme AT iname DOT com (Steamer) |
Newsgroups: | comp.os.msdos.djgpp |
Subject: | size_t |
Date: | Fri, 19 May 2000 09:11:46 GMT |
Organization: | always disorganized |
Lines: | 19 |
Message-ID: | <3925053f.4246066@news.freeserve.net> |
References: | <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1000518184200 DOT 15189T-100000 AT is> <8g1l6o DOT 3vs4qnf DOT 0 AT buerssner-17104 DOT user DOT cis DOT dfn DOT de> <392446C8 DOT 61533B8F AT mtu-net DOT ru> |
NNTP-Posting-Host: | modem-40.black-angel.dialup.pol.co.uk |
X-Trace: | news7.svr.pol.co.uk 958727507 26865 62.136.232.40 (19 May 2000 09:11:47 GMT) |
NNTP-Posting-Date: | 19 May 2000 09:11:47 GMT |
X-Complaints-To: | abuse AT theplanet DOT net |
X-Newsreader: | Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 |
To: | djgpp AT delorie DOT com |
DJ-Gateway: | from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp |
Reply-To: | djgpp AT delorie DOT com |
Alexei A. Frounze wrote: >> So, to answer Alexei's question: When your int is <= SIZE_MAX and >= 0, >> you can savely assign it to a varible of size_t. If a varible of size_t >> (or, say the return value of strlen) is <= INT_MAX, you can savely >> assign it to a varible of type int. > >Stop! There are SSIZE_MAX and _POSIX_SSIZE_MAX defined only. Are those >constants limits for size_t, right? In fact, the C89 standard doesn't define any of SIZE_MAX, SSIZE_MAX or _POSIX_SSIZE_MAX. The C99 standard does define SIZE_MAX, but it will be many years (if ever) before it's safe to assume that conforming to the C99 standard makes a program portable. I note that Borland C++ 5.5 defines SSIZE_MAX and _POSIX_SSIZE_MAX as 32767, even though it's a 32-bit compiler and sizeof(size_t)==4. S.
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |