On 13 April 2018 at 16:28, Halil Pasic <pa...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > > On 04/13/2018 04:30 PM, Thomas Huth wrote: >> "size_t" should be an unsigned type - the signed counterpart is called >> "ssize_t" in the C standard instead. Thus we should also use this > > The first sentence sounds like ssize_t is too a type defined by some > C standard. Is it or does ssize_t come form somewhere else? I find negative > size a little difficult conceptually.
I think ssize_t is from POSIX: http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs/sys_types.h.html "Used for a count of bytes or an error indication". thanks -- PMM
