Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!husc6!ukma!mailrus!ames!haven!mimsy!chris From: chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: size_t (was: A lint question) Message-ID: <14750@mimsy.UUCP> Date: 29 Nov 88 20:14:15 GMT References: <1256@vsedev.VSE.COM> <766@quintus.UUCP> Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742 Lines: 27 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. I have copied this from the 4.0BSD release (where the file was not even called types.h---this is from /usr/src/sys/h/param.h), dated no later than 1980, i.e., before ANSI C committees were even even a gleam in someone's eyes: typedef struct { int r[1]; } * physadr; typedef int daddr_t; typedef char * caddr_t; typedef unsigned short ino_t; typedef int swblk_t; typedef int size_t; typedef int time_t; typedef int label_t[14]; typedef short dev_t; typedef int off_t; Whether size_t should have been `unsigned int' even then is another question entirely. 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. -- In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 7163) Domain: chris@mimsy.umd.edu Path: uunet!mimsy!chris