[PATCH 64bit] ssize_t
Wed Feb 20 16:07:00 GMT 2013
On Feb 20 16:42, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 02/20/2013 04:17 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >On Feb 20 16:08, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> >>On 02/20/2013 03:14 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >>>Hi Yaakov,
> >>>On Feb 20 03:23, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
> >>>>I just discovered an issue resulting from this commit:
> >>>>2002-06-27 Jeff Johnston <jjohnstn@...>
> >>>> * libc/include/sys/_types.h: Define _ssize_t as int if int is
> >>>> 32-bits, otherwise define it as long.
> >>>>On x86_64-cygwin (as on Linux), int is still 32 bits, but size_t is a
> >>>>64bit unsigned long and ssize_t should be as large but signed.
> >>>>Possible patch for newlib attached; corresponding patches for
> >>>>cygwin-64bit-branch on cygwin-patches@.
> >>>Thanks for the patch. I'm just wondering if ssize_t shouldn't ideally
> >>>be based on size_t, at least when using GCC. GCC has a predefined
> >>>__SIZEOF_SIZE_T__ macro.
> >>>What I'm thinking of is something like
> >>>Does that make sense?
> >>GCC requires exact symmetry of types between ssize_t and size_t.
> >>I.e. checking for sizes of types is not sufficient for [s]size_t.
> >Do you have a code suggestion then?
> Unfortunately no.
> So far, the best I have been able to come up with for RTEMS, was a
> pretty unpleasant, error prone and lacking generality preprocessor
> ATM, it looks like this:
> > GCC doesn't define ssize_t
> >by itself,
> Right, but GCC (IIRC, since 4.4) defines size_t (__SIZE_T_TYPE__)
That's what I pasted in my previous mail.
> and also comes with pretty aggressive fprintf-format strings checks
> related to [s]size_t.
> That said, IMO, in an ideal world, GCC also would define a
> corresponding __SSIZE_T_TYPE__.
Unfortunately we're not living in an ideal world. That said, I'm
willing to go with the obvious as I outlined above. Since size_t is
*likely* defined as int if int == long, and defined as long if int <
long, this should match most cases. Oh, and then there are the
potential LLP64 systems which define sizeof size_t == sizeof long long.
An additional elif would catch that:
# if defined (__SIZEOF_INT__) && __SIZEOF_SIZE_T__ == __SIZEOF_INT__
typedef int ssize_t;
# elif defined (__SIZEOF_LONG__) && __SIZEOF_SIZE_T__ == __SIZEOF_LONG__
typedef long ssize_t
typedef long long ssize_t;
...but I don't know if it's worth the effort since no LLP64 system
(==Windows) uses newlib. And nothing speaks against overriding the
definition in a machine-specific header.
More information about the Newlib