Re: 64 bit size_t
Rather than change it to int/ulong, just change it to 'size_t len = parent.children.length+1' (or auto instead of size_t). This way it's proper for both 32-bit and 64-bit and you don't need to worry about architecture. If you do need a signed version, you can use ptrdiff_t. Yup, that's what I did when my head returned to its usual postion ;=)
Re: 64 bit size_t
On Monday, 17 February 2014 at 07:46:02 UTC, Steve Teale wrote: On Monday, 17 February 2014 at 07:17:06 UTC, Steve Teale wrote: What is size_t for 64 bit? Steve Sorry parent.children is just a straightforward array Sorry again - forget about it. I'd forgotten that D actually says int is 32 bits, and ulong is 64, and size_t for a 64 bit machine is obviously 64. I'll just go through the code and either change int to ulong or use a cast. ;=( Rather than change it to int/ulong, just change it to 'size_t len = parent.children.length+1' (or auto instead of size_t). This way it's proper for both 32-bit and 64-bit and you don't need to worry about architecture. If you do need a signed version, you can use ptrdiff_t.
Re: 64 bit size_t
On Monday, 17 February 2014 at 07:17:06 UTC, Steve Teale wrote: What is size_t for 64 bit? Steve Sorry parent.children is just a straightforward array Sorry again - forget about it. I'd forgotten that D actually says int is 32 bits, and ulong is 64, and size_t for a 64 bit machine is obviously 64. I'll just go through the code and either change int to ulong or use a cast. ;=(
Re: 64 bit size_t
On Monday, 17 February 2014 at 07:46:02 UTC, Steve Teale wrote: On Monday, 17 February 2014 at 07:17:06 UTC, Steve Teale wrote: What is size_t for 64 bit? Steve Sorry parent.children is just a straightforward array Sorry again - forget about it. I'd forgotten that D actually says int is 32 bits, and ulong is 64, and size_t for a 64 bit machine is obviously 64. I'll just go through the code and either change int to ulong or use a cast. ;=( or use auto :)
Re: 64 bit size_t
On 2/17/2014 4:15 PM, Steve Teale wrote: parent is just a straightforward array What is size_t for 64 bit? It's ulong on 64-bit and uint on 32. size_t and ptrdiff_t are defined as aliases in object.d.
Re: 64 bit size_t
On 2/17/2014 4:23 PM, evilrat wrote: but it looks like length is not size_t but ulong in which case you need explicit cast from larget to smaller type. check lenght signature size_t is an alias to ulong on 64-bit. Aliases tend to show up in error messages as the underlying type.
Re: 64 bit size_t
On Monday, 17 February 2014 at 07:15:20 UTC, Steve Teale wrote: Why is it that with 32 bit compilation, int is 32 bits, but apparently this convention is not followed in 64 bit compilation. I have not installed the 64 bit compiler yet, but apparently int len = parent.children.length+1; provokes the following error acomp.d(782): Error: cannot implicitly convert expression (parent.children.length + 1LU) of type ulong to int parent is just a straightforward array What is size_t for 64 bit? Steve it is equal to machine word size. 4 bytes on x86, 8 on x64. but it looks like length is not size_t but ulong in which case you need explicit cast from larget to smaller type. check lenght signature
Re: 64 bit size_t
On Monday, 17 February 2014 at 07:15:20 UTC, Steve Teale wrote: Why is it that with 32 bit compilation, int is 32 bits, but apparently this convention is not followed in 64 bit compilation. I have not installed the 64 bit compiler yet, but apparently int len = parent.children.length+1; provokes the following error acomp.d(782): Error: cannot implicitly convert expression (parent.children.length + 1LU) of type ulong to int parent is just a straightforward array What is size_t for 64 bit? Steve Sorry parent.children is just a straightforward array
