From:	Martin Str|mberg <ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
Message-Id:	<200106192104.XAA18859@father.ludd.luth.se>
Subject:	Re: size_t and ssize_t
In-Reply-To:	<200106191906.PAA21242@envy.delorie.com> from DJ Delorie at "Jun 19, 2001 03:06:41 pm"
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date:	Tue, 19 Jun 2001 23:04:41 +0200 (MET DST)
X-Mailer:	ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL54 (25)]
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

According to DJ Delorie:
> 
> > Any particular reason for not having "#define __DJ_ssize_t
> > typedef long int ssize_t"? Or even "long signed int ssize_t"?
> 
> There is no reason for or against any change.  Nobody is supposed to
> know what those types are, so it shouldn't matter what they are.  Is
> there a specific reason for the change?

I thought ssize_t was the signed couterpart of size_t. If so, they
should be similarly defined. Like they are now, when I need to cast
from size_t I currently use "(int)" because there isn't any similarity
between size_t and ssize_t. If ssize_t == signed size_t, then using
"(ssize_t)" would be more appropriate.

Look at my signed/unsigned mail to follow soon.


Right,

						MartinS

- Raw text -