🚀 go-pugleaf

>   larry.jones@sdrc.com (Larry Jones) writes:
>  In article <4eiua2$9u@engnews1.Eng.Sun.COM>, clamage@Eng.Sun.COM (Steve 
Clamage) writes:
>  > I have always thought that type size_t must be defined as one of
>  > the standard unsigned integer types: unsigned [char | short | int | 
long].
>  > I don't find wording in the ISO standard requiring that, however.
>  > Sections 7.1.6 and 6.3.4 say it is an "unsigned integral type", a term
>  > I don't find defined. "Integer type" is defined, but not "integral 
type".
>  
>  In response to a Defect Report, the Committee noted that the terms
>  ``integer type'' and ``integral type'' are used interchangeably and
>  should be considered synonymous.  I believe they also expressed an
>  intent to eliminate the inconsistency in the next revision.  The
>  response to another Defect Report noted that the list of integer types
>  is exhaustive and may not be extended, thus size_t must indeed be one of
>  the standard types.
>  ----
>  Larry Jones, SDRC, 2000 Eastman Dr., Milford, OH  45150-2789  513-576-2070
>  larry.jones@sdrc.com
>  I don't think that question was very hypothetical at all. -- Calvin
>  
>>>>

Larry, I recall a discussion in committee re mapping pointers to some 
integral type. Somewhere we require that I believe. IBM's AS400 came up as it 
has (I think) 128-bit addresses but no integer type that big. I thought we 
allowed magic integer types for some things but I may be misremembering.



Rex

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    +1 703 860-0091 |       Rex Jaeschke          | C and C++ Seminars
FAX +1 703 860-3008 |    2051 Swans Neck Way      | and Consulting
     rex@aussie.com | Reston, Virginia 22091, USA | 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chair of X3J11 (ANSI C) and participant in SC22/WG14 (ISO C). Columnist for 
NT Developer, VC++ Professional, and Enterprise NT.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------