Re: size_max

[Simon Josefsson]

Paul Eggert <address@hidden> writes:

> Simon Josefsson <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> How about this?  The patch was discussed and revised a few times some
>> months ago.  Nobody complained after the last patch was posted.  I'll
>> install this on Sunday, unless someone complains.
>
> It seems a bit odd for you to list Bruno as the maintainer, if broke
> out the module.  Perhaps you should change the maintainer to being
> Bruno and yourself?  Or Bruno and "all"?

Last time you asked me to change the maintainer from myself to
Bruno. :-)  Admittedly, that was before size_max.h was written...

What is the criteria for being listed as maintainer of a gnulib
module?  Wrote the code?  Interested in supporting the code?
Modularized the code?  Wrote the module file?  Gnulib developer?

In this case, I think naming me and Bruno as maintainer would be the
right thing.  Ok?

+Maintainer:
+Simon Josefsson
+Bruno Haible

Another complication:

Should we start replacing

/* Get SIZE_MAX.  */
#include <limits.h>
#if HAVE_STDINT_H
# include <stdint.h>
#endif

and/or

#ifndef SIZE_MAX
# define SIZE_MAX ((size_t) -1)
#endif

with

/* Get SIZE_MAX.  */
#include "size_max.h"

now?

Is SIZE_MAX guaranteed to be ((size_t)-1)?

Several modules would be affected by the previous.

Should size_max.h, as a safety precaution, read:

# include <limits.h>
# if HAVE_STDINT_H
#  include <stdint.h>
# endif

# ifndef SIZE_MAX
#  define SIZE_MAX ((size_t) -1)
# endif

I think the answer to the last question is no, since that would only
ever be useful on pre-C89 platforms.  But the first is trickier.