Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: size_t definition : Intel v Alpha (fwd) | Date | Tue, 28 Sep 1999 09:16:47 -0400 | From | Horst von Brand <> |
| |
"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/
| |