Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from June 2016
* Josh Juran <jjuran@gmail.com> [2016-06-21 21:24]: > On Jun 21, 2016, at 10:16 AM, ilmari@ilmari.org (Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker) wrote: > > Any more votes the merits of (S)Size_t vs. (s)size_t? > > All other things being equal, I'd encourage using standard types over > equivalent non-standard types. Same here. To me it seems the most sensible approach to portability is the OpenBSD way: write the code to a reasonable baseline, then polyfill the missing bits of each platform with the portability layer. Meaning, in perl’s case, Configure must probe for a sane ssize_t, and on platforms where it doesn’t find one, config.h must provide a reasonable fallback definition (i.e. whatever SSize_t would be on those platforms now, presumably). Then perl can use size_t/ssize_t like any conventional C project. That way, the portability concerns are isolated in one place, instead of leaking out across the entirety of the codebase. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>Thread Previous | Thread Next