Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 09:40:37 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: "Alexei A. Frounze" <alex DOT fru AT mtu-net DOT ru>
cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: size_t
In-Reply-To: <392846EF.B95361CD@mtu-net.ru>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1000522093925.22890M-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On Mon, 22 May 2000, Alexei A. Frounze wrote:

> > The relative sizes will probably be described in the C standard - i.e.
> > short is smaller than long, int is the same size as short or bigger, or
> > the same size as long or smaller. This should tell you what typecasts are
> > safe.
> 
> Actual question was not about type casting in general. It was about type
> casting for such things as size_t and fpos_t.

The same principles apply to all such types.  E.g., if off_t is at least 
as large as size_t, you know what to do when you need to mix them.