[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: preferring ptrdiff_t to size_t

From: Bruno Haible
Subject: Re: preferring ptrdiff_t to size_t
Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2019 11:37:11 +0100
User-agent: KMail/5.1.3 (Linux/4.4.0-141-generic; KDE/5.18.0; x86_64; ; )

Paul Eggert wrote:
> Using signed types is better nowadays than using unsigned types, since 
> many platforms now check for signed integer overflow and this can catch many 
> bugs, some of them security-relevant, whereas unsigned arithmetic is well 
> defined to wrap around with no overflow check (something that can be quite 
> dangerous when doing size calculations). So, for reliability and security 
> reasons, C programs should now prefer ptrdiff_t to size_t when dealing with 
> object sizes.

In the thread that starts at
I suggest to use a typedef, not ptrdiff_t directly, for values that are
known to be in the range 0..PTRDIFF_MAX.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]