size_t + ptrdiff_t

Jacob Carlborg doob at
Mon Feb 20 06:39:05 PST 2012

On 2012-02-20 12:02, Manu wrote:
> On 20 February 2012 02:48, Walter Bright <newshound2 at
> <mailto:newshound2 at>> wrote:
>     On 2/19/2012 3:15 PM, Manu wrote:
>         Ultimately I don't care, I suspect the prior commitment to
>         size_t and ptrdiff_t
>         can not be changed (although redefining their meaning would not
>         be a breaking
>         change, it just might show some cases of inappropriate usages)
>         I agree that nativeInt should probably be in the standard
>         library, but I'm
>         really not into that name. It's really long and ugly. That said,
>         I basically
>         hate size_t too, it doesn't seem very D-ish, reeks of C
>         mischief... and C stuffs
>         up those types so much. It's not dependable what they actually
>         mean in C (ie.
>         ptr size/native word size) on all compilers I've come in contact
>         with :/
>     I really think that simply adding c_int and c_uint to
>     core.stdc.config will solve the issue. After all, is there any case
>     where the corresponding C int type would be different from a nativeInt?
> ? I must have misunderstood something... I've never seen a 64bit C
> compiler where 'int' is 64bits.

According to Wikipedia, two out of four 64-bit data models uses 64bit 
integers, ILP64 and SILP64:

/Jacob Carlborg

More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list