lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Sep]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: size_t definition : Intel v Alpha (fwd)
Date
From
"B. James Phillippe" <bryan@terran.org> said:

[...]

> It comes from the Linux kernel includes <asm/posix_types.h> and
> <linux/types.h>. Personally I think it's a mistake in the kernel
> definitions, to be different C data types across architectures. It's fine
> for the sizes of a native type to differ; if "long" is a different number
> of bytes or byte-order on some other architecture. But when the data types
> themselves are different in the headers, you have problems when using
> abstract data types (eg. size_t). Effectively it's like saying that foo()
> takes an int on x86 and a long on Alpha (or Sparc64, or PPC, or ...). IMO
> it would be most proper if size_t were defined as unsigned long on all
> architectures.

If it was that way, size_t as a type would be completely pointless, would it?
--
Dr. Horst H. von Brand mailto:vonbrand@inf.utfsm.cl
Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 654431
Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 654239
Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 797513

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:54    [W:0.034 / U:1.004 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site