On 19/02/2012 16:07, Daniel Murphy wrote:
"Vladimir Panteleev"<vladi...@thecybershadow.net> wrote in message
news:valucopzdhxdjymkg...@forum.dlang.org...
On Sunday, 19 February 2012 at 15:26:27 UTC, Manu wrote:
There is code that assumes size_t is the width of the pointer
When is this not true? I can only think of 16-bit far pointers.
8-bit embedded quite often has 16-bit pointers.
And has an 8-bit size_t?
Just found the bit I read before and was trying to find again
http://www.dlang.org/portability.html
"Use size_t as an alias for an unsigned integral type that can span the address space.
Array indices should be of type size_t."
Of course, anything below 32-bit is irrelevant to D, but according to cplusplus.com size_t
is defined to be the type returned by sizeof. But where it explains sizeof it doesn't
state what type that is, and I don't know what the C or C++ standard says about it.
Stewart.
