[GRASS-dev] The "nature" of size_t
wolf+grass at bergenheim.net
Tue Mar 27 12:31:58 CEST 2007
What? No it doesn't. How do you figure it expects a signed integer?
The definition of G_calloc doesn't have anything to do with how the
compiler thinks it is. Have you redefined G_calloc somewhere? If you
declare in your own file G_calloc(unsigned int, unsigned int); Then the
compiler will think that G_calloc expects two unsigned integers, no
matter how it is really in alloc.c, since the compiler will not look in
alloc.c when compiling your stuff.
On 27.03.2007 12:42, Damiano Triglione wrote:
> I am still trying to understand the "nature" of size_t.
> If I am not wrong, it is equivalent to the unsigned integral type of the
> result of "sizeof". E.g. in my 32-bit processor PC, it is equal to 4.
> But G_calloc() expects - as first argument - a SIGNED (not unsigned)
> parameter, even if in alloc.c I find that the first argument of G_calloc
> has type size_t !
> Can anyone, please, help me tu figure out?
> grass-dev mailing list
> grass-dev at grass.itc.it
<:3 )---- Wolf Bergenheim ----( 8:>
More information about the grass-dev