ssize_t vs. size_t

[Manoj Kasichainula <ma...@raleigh.ibm.com>]

According to Single Unix, size_t is "Used for sizes of objects" while
ssize_t is "Used for a count of bytes or an error indication." I take
this to mean that size_t can be unsigned and ssize_t is signed.  But,
since APR does its errors completely differently, ssize_t is
unnecessary. Should/Can I just replace the ap_ssize_t's with
ap_size_t's?

And yeah, all this ap_size_t stuff is pedantic, but I figure it'll be
useful once we're doing 64-bit I/O.

-- 
Manoj Kasichainula - manojk@raleigh.ibm.com
IBM, Apache Development

Re: ssize_t vs. size_t

[Dean Gaudet <dg...@arctic.org>]

On Tue, 26 Oct 1999, Manoj Kasichainula wrote:

> And yeah, all this ap_size_t stuff is pedantic, but I figure it'll be
> useful once we're doing 64-bit I/O.

well ... hrm.  the size_t stuff you're doing is read/write lengths, which
are only 32-bits even when you're doing 64-bit i/o (on a 32-bit system).

to support 64-bit i/o you need to replace off_t with a 64-bit off_t...
it's only really an issue for file sizes, and seek offsets.

Dean