> In any case, size_t is defined by the standards as a type that will > hold "an unsigned integral type of the result of the sizeof > operator." So it needs to be able to accommodate the size of anything > stored in memory. It's like ptrdiff_t, only unsigned. Where ptrs are > actually 64 bits, size_t needs to be too. I believe XMLSize_t is > already defined on our platforms to be 64 bits in those situations, > though somebody is free to argue me wrong ;)
Yes, I'm aware of what size_t and ptrdiff_t are, but that's not my real concern. I'm worried we are removing an existing typedef that users might have in their code, which means they will face modifying their code. Also, we might be changing the semantics of our code and their code without understanding the consequences. By the way, I've gotten much farther with the Solaris builds, and I'll try to put together an email later with the details. Overall, the new build system seems so much cleaner! Thanks! Dave --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
