[GRASS-dev] The "nature" of size_t

[Wolf Bergenheim]

Ahmm I don't remember how GRASS 6.0 or 6.2 was (I'm using 6.3 cvs). Soo
you could try to include gisdefs.h. gisdefs.h is the header which
declares a prototype for G_calloc. Or you could just use calloc / free
(from stdlib.h) instead of G_calloc / G_free, but then you have to check
if calloc returns NULL and call a G_fatal_error or something. Also AFAIK
G_calloc hasn't changed.

--Wolf

On 27.03.2007 15:12, Damiano Triglione wrote:
> To be honest, I included "gis.h" because I am still using Grass 6.0, so
> - if I am not wring - I should not use <grass/...>.
> Maybe I have this kind of problem for this reason?
> Do you think that in Grass 6.2.1 the prototype of G_calloc is different
> from the one in Grass 6.0?
> Damiano
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wolf Bergenheim"
> <wolf+grass at bergenheim.net>
> To: "Damiano Triglione" <damiano.triglione at polimi.it>
> Cc: <grass-dev at grass.itc.it>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 1:32 PM
> Subject: Re: [GRASS-dev] The "nature" of size_t
> 
> 
>> You probably haven't included <grass/gis.h> which defines a prototype
>> for G_calloc and friends. The compiler defaults the prototype to
>> signed int.
>>
>> So be sure you have a #include <grass/gis.h> in your file where you use
>> G_calloc, to get the prototype for G_calloc, and get rid of your error.
>>
>> --Wolf
>>
>> On 27.03.2007 14:07, Damiano Triglione wrote:
>>> Thanks!
>>> I presumed it expected a signed integer, because if I invoke it with an
>>> unisgned int parameter, I have a warning:
>>>   warning: passing arg 1 of `G_calloc' as signed due to prototype
>>>
>>> even if I did not redefine G_calloc anywhere.
>>> Thus, do you think that if I declare in my file
>>>   G_calloc(unsigned int, unsigned int);
>>> I can then eliminate the warning, instead of using a cast in every
>>> invocation?
>>>
>>> Damiano
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wolf Bergenheim"
>>> <wolf+grass at bergenheim.net>
>>> To: "Damiano Triglione" <damiano.triglione at polimi.it>
>>> Cc: <grass-dev at grass.itc.it>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 12:31 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [GRASS-dev] The "nature" of size_t
>>>
>>>
>>>> What? No it doesn't. How do you figure it expects a signed integer?
>>>>
>>>> The definition of G_calloc doesn't have anything to do with how the
>>>> compiler thinks it is. Have you redefined G_calloc somewhere? If you
>>>> declare in your own file G_calloc(unsigned int, unsigned int); Then the
>>>> compiler will think that G_calloc expects two unsigned integers, no
>>>> matter how it is really in alloc.c, since the compiler will not look in
>>>> alloc.c when compiling your stuff.
>>>>
>>>> --Wolf
>>>>
>>>> On 27.03.2007 12:42, Damiano Triglione wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> I am still trying to understand the "nature" of size_t.
>>>>> If I am not wrong, it is equivalent to the unsigned integral type
>>>>> of the
>>>>> result of "sizeof". E.g. in my 32-bit processor PC, it is equal to 4.
>>>>> But G_calloc() expects - as first argument - a SIGNED (not unsigned)
>>>>> parameter, even if in alloc.c I find that the first argument of
>>>>> G_calloc
>>>>> has type size_t !
>>>>> Can anyone, please, help me tu figure out?
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Damiano
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> grass-dev mailing list
>>>>> grass-dev at grass.itc.it
>>>>> http://grass.itc.it/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>>
>>>> <:3 )---- Wolf Bergenheim ----( 8:>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> grass-dev mailing list
>>> grass-dev at grass.itc.it
>>> http://grass.itc.it/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
>>
>> -- 
>>
>> <:3 )---- Wolf Bergenheim ----( 8:>
>>
> 

-- 

<:3 )---- Wolf Bergenheim ----( 8:>