Re: [PATCH 2/2] Correct some sizeof(size_t) != sizeof(unsigned long) typing errors
On Sun, Oct 21, 2007 at 09:23:49AM +0000, René Scharfe wrote:
Show 13 quoted lines
> > Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
> > ---
> > builtin-apply.c | 2 +-
> > builtin-archive.c | 2 +-
> > diff.c | 4 ++--
> > entry.c | 2 +-
> > strbuf.h | 8 +++++++-
> > test-delta.c | 3 ++-
> > 6 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> I have a feeling this is going in then wrong direction. Shouldn't
> we rather use size_t everywhere? malloc() takes a size_t, and it's
> the basis of strbuf and also of the file content functions.
I agree, Junio was working on a patch that generalized use of size_t's
when unsigned long where used and size_t meant, I suppose he didn't had
the time to push it.
--
·O· Pierre Habouzit
··O madcoder@debian.org
OOO http://www.madism.org
Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@debian.org>