Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 19:42:44 +0300 From: "Eli Zaretskii" Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il To: rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk Message-Id: <3405-Sat25Jan2003194243+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il> X-Mailer: emacs 21.3.50 (via feedmail 8 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9 CC: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com In-reply-to: <3E319B0C.D99F6005@phekda.freeserve.co.uk> (message from Richard Dawe on Fri, 24 Jan 2003 19:59:08 +0000) Subject: Re: ssize_t: int -> signed long [PATCH] References: <3E2FB5F0 DOT B7FD75FC AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk> <1659-Thu23Jan2003203612+0200-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> <3E304571 DOT BFA087FF AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk> <3791-Fri24Jan2003214724+0200-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> <3E319B0C DOT D99F6005 AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk> 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 Precedence: bulk > Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 19:59:08 +0000 > From: Richard Dawe > > > > However, isn't ssize_t mandated by some standard? > > Yes, POSIX or SUS. However, it's not defined in . is > allowed to define anything that does. But ssize_t is not in > . It's defined in > > So we would pollute with ssize_t, if FILE._cnt is an ssize_t. Shall > I revert FILE._cnt to a long? I'd go for having ssize_t in stdio.h regardless. IMHO, a typedef does not do any harm, unless the program which includes stdio.h defines its own type under the name ssize_t. But if others feel strongly against doing that, I guess we need to go back with FILE._cnt.