From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6852 invoked by alias); 10 Jan 2012 01:29:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 6841 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Jan 2012 01:29:32 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.8 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO sourceware.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 01:29:20 +0000 From: "soltys at ziu dot info" To: glibc-bugs@sources.redhat.com Subject: [Bug libc/13575] SSIZE_MAX defined as LONG_MAX is inconsistent with SIZE_MAX, when __WORDSIZE != 64 Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 01:29:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: glibc X-Bugzilla-Component: libc X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: minor X-Bugzilla-Who: soltys at ziu dot info X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: drepper.fsp at gmail dot com X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: X-Bugzilla-URL: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: contact glibc-bugs-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: glibc-bugs-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2012-01/txt/msg00073.txt.bz2 http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13575 --- Comment #3 from Michal Soltys 2012-01-10 01:29:02 UTC --- @Joseph Thanks for clarification about size_t/ssize_t sizes. @Ulrich But for ssize_t type, the definition comes from glibc headers, not gcc. Apart from what Joseph clarified - what I meant in context of SSIZE_MAX was analogous (even if regarding the very opposite thing now) as in: http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-hacker/2002-08/msg00031.html that solution seemed more proper with reference to how ssize_t is defined in glibc headers, which for __WORDSIZE == 32 always comes down to (int), unless overriden locally. If SSIZE_MAX constant is to accurately reflect ssize_t type, then that would be more correct than just defaulting to LONG_MAX unconditionally ? Thanks for the reply, even if a rough one. As the bug report somewhat mismatches the actual issue, would it be ok to open proper one, with patch based on the old mailing post above ? If not, then just ignore the reply and forget it. -- Configure bugmail: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.