From: buers AT gmx DOT de (Dieter Buerssner)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: C++, complex, etc
Date: 19 May 2000 13:51:00 GMT
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <8g3o1e.3vs4qnf.0@buerssner-17104.user.cis.dfn.de>
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> <200005191227 DOT IAA23640 AT indy DOT delorie DOT com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pec-0-176.tnt1.s2.uunet.de (149.225.0.176)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 958744260 645959 149.225.0.176 (16 [17104])
X-Posting-Agent: Hamster/1.3.13.0
User-Agent: Xnews/03.02.04
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Eli Zaretskii wrote:

>> The correct test would be (after including limits.h) INT_MAX <= 
>> SIZE_MAX. [instead of sizeof(int) <= sizeof(size_t)]
>
>Alas, there's no SIZE_MAX in C90.  

Yes.

>It is only available in the new C99
>standard, which is not yet universally supported (DJGPP doesn't
>support it). 

So, you even managed to bring this back on topic for this newsgroup.
For DJGPP (and any C90 compiler), you can write (size_t)-1 instead
of SIZE_MAX.

Of course, as many have said in this thread, one wouldn't need all
these tests, when one uses size_t consistantly.

-- 
Regards, Dieter