On Feb 20, 2012, at 11:43 AM, Manu wrote: > On 20 February 2012 19:21, Iain Buclaw <ibuc...@ubuntu.com> wrote: > > OK, I'm just having a trudge through druntime: > > intptr_t and uintptr_t are guaranteed to match pointer size. > https://bitbucket.org/goshawk/gdc/src/87241c8e754b/d/druntime/core/stdc/stdint.d#cl-70 > > c_long and c_ulong are guaranteed to match target long size (here > would also go c_int and c_uint ;-). > https://bitbucket.org/goshawk/gdc/src/87241c8e754b/d/druntime/core/stdc/config.d#cl-22 > > This needs fixing, as wchar_t may not be same size across all targets > (some change size of wchar_t based on compile time switches). > https://bitbucket.org/goshawk/gdc/src/87241c8e754b/d/druntime/core/stdc/stddef.d#cl-28 > > This needs fixing, as wint_t may not be same size across all targets. > https://bitbucket.org/goshawk/gdc/src/87241c8e754b/d/druntime/core/stdc/wchar_.d#cl-29 > > -- > Iain Buclaw > > *(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0'; > > It seems the problem is already MUCH worse than in D already :( .. this was > precisely my fear. > Why all these redundant aliases? Just for C compatibility?
core.stdc is an interface to the C99 API, so everything is preserved verbatim. c_long and c_ulong were added because the size of C long differs between Windows and non-Windows x86_64 platforms. Typically, int, short, etc are the same however, which is why there's currently no c_int--it was just a needless complication at the time. The aliases for D users, if the exist at all, should be separate.