From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-56382-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 27018 invoked by alias); 10 Jul 2002 20:52:45 -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 27005 invoked from network); 10 Jul 2002 20:52:44 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO merlin.nerim.net) (62.212.99.186)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 10 Jul 2002 20:52:44 -0000
Received: (from gdr@localhost)
	by merlin.nerim.net (8.11.6/8.11.6/SuSE Linux 0.5) id g6AKphh29993;
	Wed, 10 Jul 2002 22:51:43 +0200
To: Joe Buck <Joe.Buck@synopsys.com>
Cc: rth@redhat.com (Richard Henderson),
   nathan@codesourcery.com (Nathan Sidwell), aj@suse.de (Andreas Jaeger),
   gcc@gcc.gnu.org, joe.goodman@intel.com (Goodman Joe)
Subject: Re: Results from Intel4s C++ ABI Testsuite
References: <200207102041.NAA27631@atrus.synopsys.com>
From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@codesourcery.com>
In-Reply-To: Joe Buck's message of "Wed, 10 Jul 2002 13:41:08 -0700 (PDT)"
Organization: CodeSourcery, LLC
Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.106)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 15:12:00 -0000
Message-ID: <m3it3njogw.fsf@merlin.nerim.net>
X-SW-Source: 2002-07/txt/msg00471.txt.bz2

Joe Buck <Joe.Buck@synopsys.com> writes:

| 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.
| 
| Richard H writes:
| > 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.
| 
| It seems that for true C++ binary compatibility all implementers must
| agree on the type of size_t.  Was this overlooked?

I can't say, that was overlooked.  I'd just say that is part of things
that are not portable across implementations, just like
std::string::size_type.

-- Gaby