Re: size_t vs long.

[DJ Delorie <dj@redhat.com>]

A via Libc-alpha <libc-alpha@sourceware.org> writes:
> I prefer long over size_t.

On many platforms, long and size_t are not the same size (in bits).  On
many 16 bit platforms, long is 32 bits and size_t (and all pointers) are
16.  On some platforms, long is only 32 bits and size_t is 64.  In the
X32 ABI long is 64 bits but size_t is only 32.  It's because these cases
exist that there are separate types for numbers vs pointers vs sizes.

> This is because, in case the user passes a negative number by mistake
> then I will be able to check it if the type is long and return
> immediately.

You want ssize_t then.  It's the same size as size_t, but signed.  For
math on pointers, use ptrdiff_t.  There's even an intptr_t (and
uintptr_t) that is whatever integer type is the same size as a pointer.

> But if size_t is used, then most probably, it will result in a crash -
> like malloc(-1) will crash the program because unsigned -1 is

malloc should not accept a size greater than half the address space (as
per the spec) so it won't matter if the parameter is signed or unsigned.