On Monday, 2 May 2016 at 19:14:59 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On 5/2/16 2:25 PM, Iain Buclaw wrote:
On Monday, 2 May 2016 at 16:24:40 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On 5/2/16 3:13 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote:
[2]: The ptrdiff_t and size_t types have a different size.
Wow, it would be a copy-paste error of some sort? An
interesting
possibility. But I'm going to say no, I don't see how this
comes into
play for the template constraints.
While there may be an alias in object.d, I'd say it's purpose
is purely
cosmetic (and to prevent missing symbol errors). It is the
compiler
that decides what types size_t, ptrdiff_t have. And while
there are
targets where word and pointer sizes are different, GDC does
not honour
this however, as the D specification on these types (and
D_LP64) trumps
that.
So you are saying that:
int * p;
int[] arr;
assert(typeof(p - p).sizeof == typeof(arr.length).sizeof);
could fail regardless of how object.d defines size_t and
ptrdiff_t? I can't imagine much would work. Interesting note
though.
I've worked with processors that have different word and
pointer sizes, but they were all too weak to be able to use D
(if you used betterc switch maybe).
Yes, although I'm not aware of LDC doing this. I can say that
GDC will always pick int/uint or long/ulong. Maybe at some point
I should allow short/ushort for 16bit targets.
--
Iain
