Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!pacbell!ames!sgi!arisia!quintus!ok
From: ok@quintus.uucp (Richard A. O'Keefe)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: size_t (was: A lint question)
Message-ID: <777@quintus.UUCP>
Date: 30 Nov 88 10:26:06 GMT
References: <1256@vsedev.VSE.COM> <766@quintus.UUCP> <14750@mimsy.UUCP>
Sender: news@quintus.UUCP
Reply-To: ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe)
Organization: Quintus Computer Systems, Inc.
Lines: 18

In article <14750@mimsy.UUCP> chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek) writes:
>In article <766@quintus.UUCP> ok@quintus.uucp (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes:
>>size_t is an unsigned integral type (except in BSD systems, where it's "int").

>The only `size_t' appearing in any 4BSD release is in .
That's the one I meant.

>The point, however, is that the size_t found in
>4BSD is not related to the size_t found in the dpANS, and hence not
>conformant.

"man types" in SunOS 3.2 lists the types and explains some of them, but
not size_t.  Since one of the differences between BSD and SysV is that
read() and write() take "unsigned" length parameters in SysV but "int"
ones in BSD, while size_t is "unsigned int" in V.3's  but
"int" in 4.2's , I assumed that it was the size_t of the
dpANS.  I'm sorry to hear that this was just good luck.  What *is*
the size_t in  for, then?