From: "Alexei A. Frounze" <alex DOT fru AT mtu-net DOT ru>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: C++, complex, etc
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 07:58:13 +0400
Organization: MTU-Intel ISP
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <39236A55.78749ABD@mtu-net.ru>
References: <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1000517145742 DOT 626A-100000 AT is> <3922DA9E DOT 8DF00783 AT mtu-net DOT ru> <392311DE DOT 3700368D AT bigfoot DOT com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp99-169.dialup.mtu-net.ru
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: gavrilo.mtu.ru 958622422 23138 212.188.99.169 (18 May 2000 04:00:22 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse AT mtu DOT ru
NNTP-Posting-Date: 18 May 2000 04:00:22 GMT
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Accept-Language: ru,en
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Richard Dawe wrote:
> 
> 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).

And you seem too. ;)
I've never said I _rely_. I don't use size_t in my sources. Only standard
types: char, short, int, long int, long long,... ;)

> 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.

I meant the same. A developer of LIBC for particular CPU. :)

bye.
Alexei A. Frounze
-----------------------------------------
Homepage: http://alexfru.chat.ru
Mirror:   http://members.xoom.com/alexfru