'Morning,
Thorsten Glaser <[email protected]> wrote:
|Steffen Nurpmeso dixit:
|>Even better is probably uintptr_t (falling back to size_t falling
|
|That’s not standardised, so, no.
Of course it is, it is even
11705 The following type designates an unsigned integer type
with the property that any valid
11706 pointer to void can be converted to this type, then
converted back to a pointer to void, and
11707 the result will compare equal to the original pointer:
11708 uintptr_t
11709 XSI On XSI-conformant systems, the
intptr_t and uintptr_t types are required; otherwise,
they
11710 are optional.
|We already require ssize_t in about three to four times the places
|where intptr_t is used, and only SunOS needs to define it, all other
|targets have it.
Isn't it just ridiculous that ISO has size_t but _still_ no
ssize_t? I hate those guys from the _very_ bottom of my heart.
So if you go POSIX and use ssize_t with mksh(1) then why don't
also use uintptr_t, too?
Tschüssi,
--steffen
