Re: scm_bits_t / scm_ubits_t

[Jacques A. Vidrine]

On Sun, Jun 10, 2001 at 03:04:09PM +0300, Michael Livshin wrote:
> size_t is fine for
> vector lengths, but might not be enough for list and (bit) array
> lengths.  

This may be true [1], but...

> we should use uintptr_t (or unsigned long) for those.
                ^^^^^^^^^

This is  wrong. uintptr_t should really  only be used to  hold pointer
values.  If one  is looking for the largest unsigned  integer, then it
would be  pretty safe to  have configure  check for the  following, in
order:

     uintmax_t
     unsigned long long
     unsigned long

Use uintmax_t  in the  source.  In  the case  that the  system doesn't
predefine it, typedef it ourselves.

Cheers,
-- 
Jacques Vidrine / address@hidden / address@hidden / address@hidden

[1]  Strictly speaking, size_t could be  very small in theory: it only
     needs to be big enough to express the size of a single object. In
     practice,  I've never  seen a  system where  it was  smaller than
     unsigned long (on i386 sizeof(int)==sizeof(long)).