Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="santosh, post: 2963320"]
You can't expect to portably store arbitrarily large values. size_t
can store values in the range of 0 ... SIZE_MAX. What's ill-defined
about this?

Here you're performing an arithmetic calculation without checking for
the possibility of wrap-around. Again results might vary across
implementations, but this is not exclusive to size_t types.

You're comparing objects which might not hold the values intended for
them.

And in what way is this exclusive to size_t. This is true for all of
C's numeric types. Each type's size and range are implementation
dependant except that certain minimum values are guaranteed by the
Standard. That's the price you'll have to pay for using an efficient,
statically typed language.

If you want a language with dynamically sized types, there're plenty
of them floating around. C was not defined to be such a language. On
the other hand, if you stick to what's guaranteed by the Standard, you
_can_ achieve a very high level of source code portability. The
problem is, you want guarantees the Standard is not providing.

<snip>
[/QUOTE]

Verification