NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/comp/lang/c/16762

Text File | 1992-11-18 | 1.8 KB | 41 lines

Xref: sparky comp.lang.c:16762 comp.std.c:3031
Path: sparky!uunet!ferkel.ucsb.edu!taco!rock!stanford.edu!agate!doc.ic.ac.uk!uknet!acorn!ixi!clive
From: [e-mail] (Clive Feather)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.std.c
Subject: Re: Idle Questions about ANSI C
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 18 Nov 92 12:26:31 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Followup-To: comp.std.c
Organization: IXI Limited, Cambridge, UK
Lines: 28

[Crossposted to comp.std.c - followups there please]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steve Clamage) writes:
> [e-mail] (P. J. Holsberg) writes:
>> 1) Is "size_t" ever not the same as "unsigned int"? If so, in what situation?
> If the address space is large but ints are small, size_t will be unsigned
> long.  If address space is small but ints are large, you might want to
> make size_t an unsigned short.  I've seen implementations like the first
> case.  The second case seems unlikely.  Both could be Standard-conforming.

As far as I can tell, the second case is Standard-conforming. However,
the Rationale says (4.1.6):
| All library prototypes are specified in terms of the "widened" types:
| an argument formerly declared as char is now written as int. This
| ensures that most library functions can be called with or without a
| prototype in scope.
(and then goes on to point out that varargs functions need a prototype).

However, this is not true for malloc if size_t is unsigned short, and:

    extern void *malloc ();

causes undefined behaviour.
--
Clive D.W. Feather     | IXI Limited         | If you lie to the compiler,
[e-mail]          | Vision Park         | it will get its revenge.
Phone: [phone] | Cambridge   CB4 4RZ |   - Henry Spencer
Fax:   [phone] | United Kingdom      |