That seems to be defined as _uintptr which could be different than 'size_t' in C, but is probably a better choice than '_int64'.
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Marc Burns <m4bu...@uwaterloo.ca> wrote: > What about _size in ffi/unsafe ? > > On Jun 14, 2015, at 1:39 PM, Eric Dobson <eric.n.dob...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I'm currently on working on bindings to a foreign library that has > elements in structs that are defined as time_t and size_t. I couldn't find > anything in the core ffi types that corresponded to these, so currently I > am using int64_t as that was what I found was correct for the system I'm > currently working on (OS X), which might not work when I try to port this > to other OS's (Linux). > > What is the best practice for using such types, is there any core c-type I > should use or should I just roll my own? > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Racket Users" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
