[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160331203004.GX21636@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 16:30:04 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: size_t and int64_t on a new platform
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 11:23:17PM +0300, Alexander Monakov wrote:
> How size_t and friends are typedef'd is visible in C++ mangled names, so
> unless I'm misunderstanding the context here, musl most likely doesn't want
> to typedef them differently to what's typical on the platform.
>
> What about using compiler defines? GCC and Clang will predefine __SIZE_TYPE__
> and such, which is directly usable for typedef'ing size_t&co; see:
>
> :| gcc -xc - -E -dD|grep TYPE
Changing them on an existing platform is not what's under discussion.
The question was just about whether a new (virtual) arch can use
[unsigned] long rather than [unsigned] int for these types without
making things difficult for musl. Of course the compiler's choice of
types has to match musl's, whichever definition is used.
Rich
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.
