Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 08:27:20 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200005191227.IAA23640@indy.delorie.com>
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT delorie DOT com>
To: buers AT gmx DOT de (Dieter Buerssner)
CC: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <8g1l6o.3vs4qnf.0@buerssner-17104.user.cis.dfn.de>
Subject: Re: C++, complex, etc
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>
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
Precedence: bulk

> From: buers AT gmx DOT de (Dieter Buerssner)
> Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
> Date: 18 May 2000 18:47:18 GMT
> 
> This test (sizeof(int) <= sizeof(size_t)) probalbly is sufficient for 
> all C implementations (at least the ones know). But it is not enough
> from the C Standard. size_t could have padding bits. The correct test
> would be (after including limits.h) INT_MAX <= SIZE_MAX. 

Alas, there's no SIZE_MAX in C90.  It is only available in the new C99
standard, which is not yet universally supported (DJGPP doesn't
support it).  We have _POSIX_SSIZE_MAX and SSIZE_MAX, but those are not
ANSI-standard.