Viewing profile — xcgvgh

It's also very dangerous.

There is no reinventing going on here. In C you have to write relatively low level code. This includes manually calling allocs for objects, which includes the code for checking you…

Using calloc instead of malloc, just for checking arithmetic overflow, is superfluous. You can always write a check or a wrapper for malloc that does that automatically. It is so e…

The assignment is a conversion from unsigned to signed, if the value cannot be represented by the signed type, the result is implementation defined or an implementation defined sig…

I understand. If I change the argument to: size_t is capable of holding the largest array index" , then this must be correct, or is there still something I missed?

>size_t is defined as "an integer capable of holding the >largest array index" >>No, it isn't. Could anyone elaborate? I don't see how could someone allocate more than SIZE_MAX byt…

If I'm reading it correctly it got denied because it would be too similar to an already existing trademark: LP LET’S PLAY . Yuck...

I apologize. I wasn't aware of extended integer types.

There are no such things in the C Standard.

Typedef doesn't create a new type, it merely creates a new name for a type. I don't know what you mean by implementation defined integer type. If the implementation is conforming, …

With my assumption, it will be defined as an unsigned char, as it should be.

In the second to last paragraph; did you hint that wrapping a char*, used as a string, into a struct, to get type safety?

I think the whole article needs a preface, assuming CHAR_BIT is defined as 8 .

I use long when I need an int that can always represent ranges in -2^31-1 to 2^31-1, no assumptions necessary. Same goes for unsigned versions and long long.