On 12/3/20 6:29 PM, Bruno Haible wrote:
+/* Note: ISO C does not mandate that 'size_t' and 'ptrdiff_t' have the same
+ size, but it is so an all platforms we have seen since 1990. */
Thanks for the change.
This prompted me to re-read the intprops documentation and (among other things)
upda
Paul Eggert wrote:
> > For this reason I see the choice of a signed type as an_implementation_
> > detail.
>
> It's a crucial detail and it belongs in the API. I not not want to waste time
> worrying whether idx_t is signed in any code that uses idx_t, as
> signed-vs-unsigned problems are ende
On 12/3/20 2:02 PM, Bruno Haible wrote:
For this reason I see the choice of a signed type as an_implementation_ detail.
It's a crucial detail and it belongs in the API. I not not want to waste time
worrying whether idx_t is signed in any code that uses idx_t, as
signed-vs-unsigned problems a
Hi Paul,
> > /* The user can define UNSIGNED_INDSIZE_T, to get a different set of
> > compiler
> > warnings. */
>
> I'm leery of this complexity, as it would change the semantics of what the
> type
> means. The type is not just about compiler warnings; it's about preferring
> signed inte
On 12/3/20 6:25 AM, Bruno Haible wrote:
/* The user can define UNSIGNED_INDSIZE_T, to get a different set of compiler
warnings. */
I'm leery of this complexity, as it would change the semantics of what the type
means. The type is not just about compiler warnings; it's about preferring
si
it means "rpath and dest are pointers into possibly different memory
objects", whereas when we write
indsize_t dest_offset = dest - rpath;
it means "rpath and dest are pointers into the same memory object,
and rpath <= dest".
Here's the proposed patch.
2020-12-03
