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 at acm.org>
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4