From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-56367-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 25206 invoked by alias); 10 Jul 2002 15:44:28 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 25199 invoked from network); 10 Jul 2002 15:44:27 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO potter.sfbay.redhat.com) (205.180.83.107)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 10 Jul 2002 15:44:27 -0000
Received: from dot.sfbay.redhat.com (dot.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.24.7])
	by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g6AFjGQ21932;
	Wed, 10 Jul 2002 08:45:16 -0700
Received: (from rth@localhost)
	by dot.sfbay.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g6AFiOm11985;
	Wed, 10 Jul 2002 08:44:24 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: dot.sfbay.redhat.com: rth set sender to rth@redhat.com using -f
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 13:40:00 -0000
From: Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com>
To: Nathan Sidwell <nathan@codesourcery.com>
Cc: Andreas Jaeger <aj@suse.de>, gcc@gcc.gnu.org,
   "Goodman, Joe" <joe.goodman@intel.com>
Subject: Re: Results from Intel4s C++ ABI Testsuite
Message-ID: <20020710084424.B11967@redhat.com>
Mail-Followup-To: Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com>,
	Nathan Sidwell <nathan@codesourcery.com>,
	Andreas Jaeger <aj@suse.de>, gcc@gcc.gnu.org,
	"Goodman, Joe" <joe.goodman@intel.com>
References: <u81yagsp9g.fsf@gromit.moeb> <3D2740E8.D9D3A105@codesourcery.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i
In-Reply-To: <3D2740E8.D9D3A105@codesourcery.com>; from nathan@codesourcery.com on Sat, Jul 06, 2002 at 08:11:36PM +0100
X-SW-Source: 2002-07/txt/msg00456.txt.bz2

On Sat, Jul 06, 2002 at 08:11:36PM +0100, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> I don't have a C std in front of me, but IIRC size_t
> is the first of 'unsigned int', 'unsigned long', 'unsigned long long'
> that can hold an object's size. So, on an ILP32 machine, it will be
> 'unsigned int' and operator new (size_t) will be _Znwj.

Nope.  C standard only says it will be unsigned, nothing more.

About half of the ILP32 OSs use "unsigned int", and the other
half use "unsigned long".  You can do nothing but agree with
whatever the person who wrote the system headers decided.


r~