delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
Date: | Thu, 8 Feb 2001 10:28:58 +0200 (IST) |
From: | Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> |
X-Sender: | eliz AT is |
To: | Stephen Silver <djgpp AT argentum DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk> |
cc: | DJGPP Workers <djgpp-workers AT DELORIE DOT COM> |
Subject: | Re: stddef.h - namespace std patch |
In-Reply-To: | <003a01c09158$f39742e0$f9e4883e@oemcomputer> |
Message-ID: | <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010208102839.20284W-100000@is> |
MIME-Version: | 1.0 |
Reply-To: | djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com |
Errors-To: | nobody AT delorie DOT com |
X-Mailing-List: | djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com |
X-Unsubscribes-To: | listserv AT delorie DOT com |
On Wed, 7 Feb 2001, Stephen Silver wrote: > This is the stddef.h patch. Thanks. > The only complication here is that 'offsetof' needs a different > definition in C++ (using std::size_t instead of size_t). Hmm... I feel uneasy about this. Won't this backfire with older/newer/different versions of the C++ compiler, and won't it break if users use namespaces not to the letter of The Law? Anyway, what bad things happen if we leave offsetof's definition as it is now? This survived unchanged for many years, and I don't think I've ever seen a problem report about it.
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |