From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 21:05:13 GMT
Subject: Re: size_t vs "unsigned long"
Message-ID: <7v641newom.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <20071003204801.GC28188@artemis.corp>

Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@debian.org> writes:

>   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.

FWIW, I am already getting bitten on a FC box with gcc 4.1.1
20060525 that warns about the wrong type being passed, as I
usually build things with -Werror; the issue is not just "they
are of the same underlying type".