Re: size_t vs "unsigned long"

> On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 08:30:04PM +0000, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > Traditionally, inside git, we have used the length of things
> > with "unsigned long" for pretty much anything, except where we
> > wanted the length exactly sized we used int32_t, uint64_t and
> > friends.
> >
> > A few places pass pointer to unsigned long as the second
> > parameter to strbuf_detach(), triggering type mismatch warnings.
> > An easy way out is to change strbuf_detach() to take a pointer
> > to ulong but I think it is going backwards.  Most places that
> > use "unsigned long" can safely be converted (and made more
> > correct) to use size_t.
>
>   Well, afaict, on every linux archs I know of, unsigned longs and
> size_t are the same. Though, I don't know if that holds for the msys
> port, and if that does not holds, then a s/unsigned long/size_t/ would
> help them. Else, for consistency sake, I believe the change is a good
> one.