Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 446695
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 12, 20262026-05-12T21:29:47+00:00 2026-05-12T21:29:47+00:00

GCC 4.4.1, C99 I am using size_t , and size_t is an unsigned int

  • 0

GCC 4.4.1, C99

I am using size_t, and size_t is an unsigned int. However, that depends if you are running 32 bit or 64 bit.

I will be using size_t to store the size of a buffer.

So I don’t think this would be very portable if using across architectures.

Just a question, with using size_t on either a 32 or 64 bit. What situations would cause the most serious problem?

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 1 View
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-12T21:29:47+00:00Added an answer on May 12, 2026 at 9:29 pm

    size_t is guaranteed to be able to hold the number of bytes of any object on your implementation.
    That’s why the return type of sizeof is size_t.

    So yes, it’s portable.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

I am compiling my program that will run on linux gcc 4.4.1 C99. I
compiling with gcc C99 I have been using enums for a while now. However,
GCC compiles (using gcc --omit-frame-pointer -s ): int the_answer() { return 42; } into
C99 standard has integer types with bytes size like int64_t. I am using Windows's
linux gcc 4.4.1 C99 I am just wondering is there any advantage using the
I am using Linux GCC c99. I am wondering what would be the best
compiling with gcc C99 I am trying to compare 2 string using string compare.
Apparently (at least according to gcc -std=c99 ) C99 doesn't support function overloading. The
gcc 4.1.2 c99 I have the following enum's in this file ccsmd.h : enum
gcc 4.4.2 c89 I have a wave file: 8000 Hz 16 bit I am

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.