[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130501180015.GN12689@port70.net>
Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 20:00:15 +0200
From: Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@...t70.net>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: sign (in)consistency between architectures
* Z. Gilboa <zg7s@...rvices.virginia.edu> [2013-05-01 13:05:03 -0400]:
> The current architecture-specific type definitions
> (arch/*/bits/alltypes.h) seem to entail the following inconsistent
> signed/unsigned types:
>
> type x86_64 i386
> -------------------------------
> uid_t unsigned signed
> gid_t unsigned signed
> dev_t unsigned signed
> clock_t signed unsigned
i can verify that glibc uses unsigned
uid_t,gid_t,dev_t and signed clock_t
of course applications should not depend on
the signedness, but if they appear in a c++
api then the difference can cause problems
and cock_t may be used in arithmetics where
signedness matters
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
