In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Mon, 17 May 2004 02:37:10 +0200, Andy Polyakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
appro> >>I don't think everything has to be size_t-fied. In some situations it appro> > appro> > appro> > Do you care about 16bit platforms? appro> appro> Well, I was wondering this question myself. Do we? Does appro> *anybody* compile OpenSSL on 16-bit platforms nowadays? Is it appro> still of interest? What 16-bit platforms are out there? But in appro> either case... Hmm, DJGPP? appro> > Perhaps use "sslsize_t" (or sizeu32_t) which is usually appro> > size_t, but not necessarily so. I don't think that's the right approach. The right approach is to rely on a standard type, like size_t, and if it's not well defined, we might define it to the sensible thing (like the type returned by strlen() or required by malloc() on the platform at hand), but other than that, just don't bother. I don't have the standards document, but I thought size_t was defined as part of C89. Am I incorrect in my beliefs? ----- Please consider sponsoring my work on free software. See http://www.free.lp.se/sponsoring.html for details. -- Richard Levitte \ Tunnlandsv�gen 52 \ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ S-168 36 BROMMA \ T: +46-708-26 53 44 \ SWEDEN \ Procurator Odiosus Ex Infernis -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Member of the OpenSSL development team: http://www.openssl.org/ Unsolicited commercial email is subject to an archival fee of $400. See <http://www.stacken.kth.se/~levitte/mail/> for more info. ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
