Jan. 10, 2004
1:39 p.m.
Martin v. Loewis wrote:
Please change all uses of sizes/positions to "size_t", and change the special -1 marker to (size_t)-1.
If sizeof(int) < sizeof(size_t), is it *guaranteed* that (size_t)-1 expands to a bit pattern of all 1's? Also, is it *guaranteed* that you don't get more warnings (converting a negative quantity to unsigned)? I've been using ~(size_t)1 for things like this where these *are* guaranteed. -- Sjoerd Mullender <sjoerd@acm.org>