Does in glibc, the sizeof(ssize_t) always equals to sizeof(size_t)

[Paul Eggert]

On 2026-05-22 10:50, Yonggang Luo wrote:
> Do you mean (OSF/1, UNICOS, late old AmigaOS/AROS/MorphOS, old TRON) ,
> these lists of OS have sizeof(ssize_t)!=sizeof(size_t)?

Yes, that's what I meant. They all had ssize_t narrower than size_t. 
This was for backward compatibility, e.g., their 'read' syscall always 
returned a 32-bit signed int even though size_t was 64 bits. In some of 
the really-old systems the issue was 16-bit signed int vs 32-bit size_t.

Perhaps this could happen in the future with 64-bit ssize_t and 128-bit 
size_t, right? Though that would be pretty far in the future.