On 04/13/2018 11:59 AM, Halil Pasic wrote:
> This ssize_t seems to be an rather interesting type. For instance POSIX says
> """
> size_t
> Used for sizes of objects.
> ssize_t
> Used for a count of bytes or an error indication.
> """
> and
> """
> The type ssize_t shall be capable of stori
On Fri, 13 Apr 2018 14:09:55 -0400
Collin Walling wrote:
> On 04/13/2018 02:06 PM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> > On 04/13/2018 01:59 PM, Halil Pasic wrote:
> On 04/13/2018 04:30 PM, Thomas Huth wrote:
> > "size_t" should be an unsigned type - the signed counterpart is called
> >>
On 04/13/2018 02:06 PM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> On 04/13/2018 01:59 PM, Halil Pasic 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
>>>
On 04/13/2018 01:59 PM, Halil Pasic 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 defin
On 04/13/2018 05:50 PM, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 13.04.2018 17:28, Halil Pasic 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 sente
On 13.04.2018 17:28, Halil Pasic 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
On 13 April 2018 at 16:28, Halil Pasic 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 def
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
On 04/13/2018 10:30 AM, 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
> convention in the s390-ccw firmware to avoid confusion. I checked the
> sources, and apart from one spot in libc.
On 04/13/2018 11:30 AM, 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
> convention in the s390-ccw firmware to avoid confusion. I checked the
> sources, and apart from one spot in libc.
10 matches
Mail list logo
