<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2008/11/13 martin f krafft <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:madduck@debian.org">madduck@debian.org</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
also sprach Paul Harris <<a href="mailto:paulharris@computer.org">paulharris@computer.org</a>> [2008.11.13.1254 +0100]:<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d">> does anyone know what the "standard" policy is on this? from what I can<br>
> tell, size_t will allow you to store the largest integer number on that<br>
<br>
</div>*unsigned*<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
> platform (eg max memory address etc) whereas unsigned int is the most<br>
> efficient integer size...<br>
<br>
</div>int is defined to be 32bits, I think. So the question is really: is<br>
max(size_t) platform dependent or not. If it is, then we ought to<br>
avoid that, I think. If it isn't, then it's just the same as<br>
unsigned int. Thus, unsigned int, might be the better choice.<br>
</blockquote><div><br>it is platform dependent, but i read on the internet (therefore it must be true) that it was designed that way so its more portable.<br><br>an 8 bit platform will give you a small size_t since it can't address large amounts of memory anyway...<br>
<br>that way, the same code will "scale up" from an 8 bit microcpu up to the 64 bit gorillas<br><br>no?<br><br></div></div>