On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 04:55:29PM +0200, Janne Blomqvist wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 3:42 PM, Andre Vehreschild <ve...@gmx.de> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> >> I think you should use build_zero_cst(size_type_node) instead of
> >> size_zero_node as size_zero_node is of type sizetype which is not the
> >> same as size_type_node. Otherwise looks good.
> >
> > In the software design classes I took this was called a design error: Not
> > choosing sufficiently different names for different artifacts. It was
> > considered a beginner's error.
>
> Yeah, sizetype vs. size_type_node is confusing, to say the least..
The first one is GCC internal type for representing sizes, the latter is
the C size_t (usually they have the same precision, they always have the
same signedness (unsigned)).
In the past sizetype actually has been a signed type with very special
behavior.
Jakub
