This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Results from Intel4s C++ ABI Testsuite
- From: Joe Buck <Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot com>
- To: rth at redhat dot com (Richard Henderson)
- Cc: nathan at codesourcery dot com (Nathan Sidwell),aj at suse dot de (Andreas Jaeger), gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org,joe dot goodman at intel dot com (Goodman Joe)
- Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 13:41:08 -0700 (PDT)
- Subject: Re: Results from Intel4s C++ ABI Testsuite
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?