div0 Wrote:
> Well done, glad you proved me wrong.
>
> It does seem unlikely that size_t is wrong,
> though you can test it easily enough:
>
> compile a test C program to see what size it is and compare it to the D
> version:
>
> void main() {
> printf("sizeof: %d", sizeof(size_t));
> }
>
> It should be 4 on a 32 bit system & 8 for 64 bit.
Hope I didn't say size_t. stat_t, a very complicated struct known as struct
stat in C. I don't know for sure that it is wrong, but at this point it is the
most likely candidate.
Also none of the changes I made related to the question affected the ability of
the program to work (maybe a more complicated one). Just glad I wasn't to far
off in my translation.
