Alexander Stohr wrote:
> > possibly i am thinking a bit more practical: - the number of pages > should never go negative, so why do we need the sign? - there is no > reason why the number of pages should get limited to i.e. 2 GB > instead of 4 GB on 32 bit machines. I think Phil *meant* 'unsigned int' instead of 'int' :-) > - you are right in trying to distinguish number_of_bytes and number_of_elements > > by meance of different type defines for them. - i am not aware of a > better type define - you might want to suggest a new one. > > Suggestion: typedef unsigned int elcount_t; or #define elcount_t > unsigned int > > But to proove you the opposite: void *calloc(size_t nmemb, size_t > size); nmemb => number_of_elements size => number_of_bytes (per > element of course) > > so the usage is already a bit puzzled for other central areas. don't > blame the agpgart programmers for introducing this... > > Yep, that's true... So using 'size_t' for element count seems to be a rather common thing (though 'calloc' is the only example I found so far ;-). The alternative of using another #define might make the code more readable, but we may also stick to the existing version and just add a few comments, s.t. people using it are not puzzled by the signification of the value. BTW, is 'size_t' an 'unsigned int' on every 32-bit platform ? and on the 64-bit ones ? Anyone knows about that ? a+ -- Nicolas Aspert Signal Processing Laboratory (LTS) Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (EPFL) _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
