This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] Re: Your addition of BT_SSIZE
"Joseph S. Myers" <jsm@polyomino.org.uk> writes:
> On Tue, 19 Aug 2003, Zack Weinberg wrote:
>
>> How about we worry about this only when such a target actually turns
>> up in real life?
>
> I'm suggesting that we only add the mechanism for targets to specify
> ssize_t when one turns up where it isn't the signed type corresponding to
> size_t. Using only one node internally should at least be accompanied by
> a comment at every place using it for ssize_t to the effect that it is
> being used as an *approximation* to ssize_t (so that those places can then
> effectively be found); but just using two tree nodes would be simpler and
> avoid embedding a confusion between the two types.
It's only simpler if you think that such a target will eventually turn
up. If you think, as I do, that no such target will ever turn up,
then making the distinction just adds complexity to no benefit.
zw