• Steve Teale (8/10) Feb 16 2014 Why is it that with 32 bit compilation, int is 32 bits, but
• Steve Teale (2/13) Feb 16 2014 Sorry parent.children is just a straightforward array
• Steve Teale (7/11) Feb 16 2014 Sorry again - forget about it. I'd forgotten that D actually says
• evilrat (2/14) Feb 16 2014 or use auto :)
• Kapps (6/18) Feb 17 2014 Rather than change it to int/ulong, just change it to 'size_t len
• Steve Teale (2/7) Feb 18 2014 Yup, that's what I did when my head returned to its usual postion
• evilrat (5/16) Feb 16 2014 it is equal to machine word size. 4 bytes on x86, 8 on x64.
• Mike Parker (3/5) Feb 16 2014 size_t is an alias to ulong on 64-bit. Aliases tend to show up in error
• Mike Parker (3/5) Feb 16 2014 It's ulong on 64-bit and uint on 32. size_t and ptrdiff_t are defined as...

"Steve Teale" <steve.teale britseyeview.com> writes:

Why is it that with 32 bit compilation, int is 32 bits, but
apparently this convention is not followed in 64 bit compilation.

I have not installed the 64 bit compiler yet, but apparently

int len = parent.children.length+1;

provokes the following error

 acomp.d(782): Error: cannot implicitly convert expression 
 (parent.children.length + 1LU) of type ulong to int

parent is just a straightforward array

What is size_t for 64 bit?

Steve

"Steve Teale" <steve.teale britseyeview.com> writes:

On Monday, 17 February 2014 at 07:15:20 UTC, Steve Teale wrote:
 Why is it that with 32 bit compilation, int is 32 bits, but
 apparently this convention is not followed in 64 bit 
 compilation.

 I have not installed the 64 bit compiler yet, but apparently

 int len = parent.children.length+1;

 provokes the following error

 acomp.d(782): Error: cannot implicitly convert expression 
 (parent.children.length + 1LU) of type ulong to int

 parent is just a straightforward array

 What is size_t for 64 bit?

 Steve

Sorry parent.children is just a straightforward array

"Steve Teale" <steve.teale britseyeview.com> writes:

On Monday, 17 February 2014 at 07:17:06 UTC, Steve Teale wrote:

 What is size_t for 64 bit?

 Steve

 Sorry parent.children is just a straightforward array

Sorry again - forget about it. I'd forgotten that D actually says 
int is 32 bits, and ulong is 64, and size_t for a 64 bit machine 
is obviously 64.

I'll just go through the code and either change int to ulong or 
use a cast.

;=(

"evilrat" <evilrat666 gmail.com> writes:

On Monday, 17 February 2014 at 07:46:02 UTC, Steve Teale wrote:
 On Monday, 17 February 2014 at 07:17:06 UTC, Steve Teale wrote:

 What is size_t for 64 bit?

 Steve

 Sorry parent.children is just a straightforward array

 Sorry again - forget about it. I'd forgotten that D actually 
 says int is 32 bits, and ulong is 64, and size_t for a 64 bit 
 machine is obviously 64.

 I'll just go through the code and either change int to ulong or 
 use a cast.

 ;=(

or use auto :)

"Kapps" <opantm2+spam gmail.com> writes:

On Monday, 17 February 2014 at 07:46:02 UTC, Steve Teale wrote:
 On Monday, 17 February 2014 at 07:17:06 UTC, Steve Teale wrote:

 What is size_t for 64 bit?

 Steve

 Sorry parent.children is just a straightforward array

 Sorry again - forget about it. I'd forgotten that D actually 
 says int is 32 bits, and ulong is 64, and size_t for a 64 bit 
 machine is obviously 64.

 I'll just go through the code and either change int to ulong or 
 use a cast.

 ;=(

Rather than change it to int/ulong, just change it to 'size_t len 
= parent.children.length+1' (or auto instead of size_t). This way 
it's proper for both 32-bit and 64-bit and you don't need to 
worry about architecture. If you do need a signed version, you 
can use ptrdiff_t.

"Steve Teale" <steve.teale britseyeview.com> writes:

 Rather than change it to int/ulong, just change it to 'size_t 
 len = parent.children.length+1' (or auto instead of size_t). 
 This way it's proper for both 32-bit and 64-bit and you don't 
 need to worry about architecture. If you do need a signed 
 version, you can use ptrdiff_t.

Yup, that's what I did when my head returned to its usual postion 
;=)

"evilrat" <evilrat666 gmail.com> writes:

On Monday, 17 February 2014 at 07:15:20 UTC, Steve Teale wrote:
 Why is it that with 32 bit compilation, int is 32 bits, but
 apparently this convention is not followed in 64 bit 
 compilation.

 I have not installed the 64 bit compiler yet, but apparently

 int len = parent.children.length+1;

 provokes the following error

 acomp.d(782): Error: cannot implicitly convert expression 
 (parent.children.length + 1LU) of type ulong to int

 parent is just a straightforward array

 What is size_t for 64 bit?

 Steve

it is equal to machine word size. 4 bytes on x86, 8 on x64.

but it looks like length is not size_t but ulong in which case 
you need explicit cast from larget to smaller type. check lenght 
signature

Mike Parker <aldacron gmail.com> writes:

On 2/17/2014 4:23 PM, evilrat wrote:

 but it looks like length is not size_t but ulong in which case you need
 explicit cast from larget to smaller type. check lenght signature

size_t is an alias to ulong on 64-bit. Aliases tend to show up in error 
messages as the underlying type.

Mike Parker <aldacron gmail.com> writes:

On 2/17/2014 4:15 PM, Steve Teale wrote:

 parent is just a straightforward array

 What is size_t for 64 bit?

It's ulong on 64-bit and uint on 32. size_t and ptrdiff_t are defined as 
aliases in object.d.