[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Proposal: immediate strings

From: Dmitry Antipov
Subject: Re: Proposal: immediate strings
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 10:14:06 +0400
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1

On 05/31/2012 08:34 PM, Paul Eggert wrote:

Part of my misunderstanding was due to that the code confuses 'unsigned long'
with 'ptrdiff_t'.  The two types need not be the same width.
The code should use 'sizeof (ptrdiff_t)' where it currently
uses 'sizeof (unsigned long)', and we need a BITS_PER_PTRDIFF_T
enum to size the fields correctly.

The problem with ptrdiff_t is that it's signed (and has no unsigned version),
and the code assumes that the bitfields are unsigned.

This raises the question which I wanted to raise long time ago: why ptrdiff_t
(read: signed difference between pointers) is used for size values, although
there is a special type ssize_t (and it's unsigned counterpart size_t)?


reply via email to

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