unsigned int vs. size_t

Question

I notice that modern C and C++ code seems to use size_t instead of int/unsigned int pretty much everywhere - from parameters for C string functions to the STL. I am curious as to the reason for this and the benefits it brings.

Answer 1

This excerpt from the glibc manual 0.02 may also be relevant when researching the topic:

There is a potential problem with the size_t type and versions of GCC prior to release 2.4. ANSI C requires that size_t always be an unsigned type. For compatibility with existing systems' header files, GCC defines size_t in stddef.h' to be whatever type the system'ssys/types.h' defines it to be. Most Unix systems that define size_t in `sys/types.h', define it to be a signed type. Some code in the library depends on size_t being an unsigned type, and will not work correctly if it is signed.

The GNU C library code which expects size_t to be unsigned is correct. The definition of size_t as a signed type is incorrect. We plan that in version 2.4, GCC will always define size_t as an unsigned type, and the fixincludes' script will massage the system'ssys/types.h' so as not to conflict with this.

In the meantime, we work around this problem by telling GCC explicitly to use an unsigned type for size_t when compiling the GNU C library. `configure' will automatically detect what type GCC uses for size_t arrange to override it if necessary.

Answer 2

size_t is the size of a pointer.

So in 32 bits or the common ILP32 (integer, long, pointer) model size_t is 32 bits. and in 64 bits or the common LP64 (long, pointer) model size_t is 64 bits (integers are still 32 bits).

There are other models but these are the ones that g++ use (at least by default)