Re: size_t changes and 32/64-bit, kernel uio_resid type changed.
Garance A Drosihn wrote:
> At 9:49 PM -0700 8/18/09, Matthew Dillon wrote:
>> size_t has been changed to unsigned long (and ssize_t to long). I
>> may
>> revert this prior to the release if we hit pkgsrc problems. The
>> change
>> will be kept for 64-bit machines.
>>
>> The change on 32 bit machines seems to do a pretty good job
>> generating
>> compiler warnings on 32-bit machines for code that will break on
>> 64-bit machines. Because of this I think it is worth seeing how
>> badly
>> pkgsrc breaks with the change. If it breaks too much we will revert
>> it on 32 bit machines.
>
> Isn't this explicitly wrong? Isn't ssize_t defined as holding all
> valid values of size_t, *plus* some extra values which can be used
> for error indications?
>
> To quote SUSv3:
>
> "The type ssize_t shall be capable of storing values at least
> in the range [-1, {SSIZE_MAX}]"
>
> So are you defining SSIZE_MAX to be smaller than maximum-long?
>
You are mistaken.
ssize_t is expected to be the same size as size_t.
SSIZE_MAX in our case will equal LONG_MAX. What do you see as being
wrong with that?
討論串 (同標題文章)
完整討論串 (本文為第 3 之 10 篇)：