On Oct 11, 2016, at 2:12 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 10/11/2016 01:03 PM, Programmingkid wrote:
>
>>> +/* Mac OSX has a bug that incorrectly defines SIZE_MAX with
>>> + * the wrong type. Our replacement isn't usable in preprocessor
>>> + * expressions, but it is sufficient for our needs. */
>>>
On 11 October 2016 at 19:12, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 10/11/2016 01:03 PM, Programmingkid wrote:
>
>>> +/* Mac OSX has a bug that incorrectly defines SIZE_MAX with
>>> + * the wrong type. Our replacement isn't usable in preprocessor
>>> + * expressions, but it is sufficient for
On 10/11/2016 01:03 PM, Programmingkid wrote:
>> +/* Mac OSX has a bug that incorrectly defines SIZE_MAX with
>> + * the wrong type. Our replacement isn't usable in preprocessor
>> + * expressions, but it is sufficient for our needs. */
>> +#if defined(HAVE_BROKEN_SIZE_MAX) &&
Eric Blake writes:
> C99 requires SIZE_MAX to be declared with the same type as the
> integral promotion of size_t, but OSX mistakenly defines it as
> an 'unsigned long long' expression even though size_t is only
> 'unsigned long'. Rather than futzing around with whether